Open main menu

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

July 31Edit


[Posted] Floods in Gujarat, IndiaEdit

Article: 2017 Gujarat flood (talk, history)
Blurb: Flooding in Gujarat, India, kills at least 224 people.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 224 people are reported to have been killed in floods in the Indian state of Gujarat.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, NYT, Al Jazeera.

Nominator's comments: "Worst flood of the century" 171.117.194.201 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Already discussed and marked [Ready] but not posted, possibly due to not noticing it. See archive on date July 27.--Nizil (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017#.5BReady.5D_2017_Gujarat_flood (old nomination)
  • Support as large number of death and unusually high rain in region. Highlighted changing climate.--Nizil (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support don't see any reason not to. Banedon (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Quite surprised we didn't post it before when it was marked ready with enough Support. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I didn't support this before but the situation has changed from the last nomination(which had consensus, as pointed out). 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is adequate. Incident is notable. Previous nomination had consensus. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 12:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi embassy attack in KabulEdit

Article: 2017 attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul (talk, history)
Blurb: An attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul leads to a gun battle between ISIL and Afghan Special forces, leaving six dead.
News source(s): BBC, NYT

Nominator's comments: It is notable being an attack on embassy apart from a other attacks in Afghanistan, which usually involves a bombing incident. Passed the sso called BBC-NYT test. Aslo gaining media coverage in Iraq and Pakistan. Amirk94391 (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I've tweaked the blurb, suited more to our house style. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. Undecided on the merits right now, but does "six dead on both sides" mean 12 dead total(6 on each side) or 6 dead total? 331dot (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: I've tweaked the blurb. What do you think of it now? Amirk94391 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when article moves to start class - Article is a stub now, so support when it is updated to Start class. Been in the top news for two days now on BBC. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sherenk1: I've added some more contents to the article. I hope you'll now consider it as a Start class article.Amirk94391 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question Have I misread the consensus, or haven't we decided not to include perps in the death count? I'm of the opinion that the fate of a criminal does not belong in the title of an article about his crime. GCG (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    The question would then be are the ISIL fighters criminals or combatants. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    For intentional suicide terrorist attacks on civilians the consensus is not to include the perpetrator(s). For conflicts between conventional military forces the consensus is to include all the dead. For everything else there is no absolute consensus I am aware of, so we have to judge what makes most sense in the specific circumstances. In this case it's a matter of opinion whether ISIS fighters are terrorists or a (guerilla) army, so I think it best to just give the total and leave the detail to the article which can use as many words as necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    When I give total number of Tempel Mount shooting. It was considerd wrong. I am wondering what is the difference here. Diplomatic mission are not ussualy considered as a military targed. This is political attack not some military operation. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    Speaking generally, I'd say embassy attacks fall into the grey area. If the attacked embassy is nowhere near a war zone and operator and host are not currently engaged in the same war elsewhere (e.g. an attack on the Peruvian embassy in Argentina) then it is extremely unlikely to be anything other than a terrorist attack. An attack on an embassy located in a war zone is quite likely (although not always) to be military in nature, particularly if the operating country is involved in that war (e.g. the Russian embassy in Syria). It also depends on the type of attack - if its an air strike then obviously it's military, it it's a car bomb it's almost certainly terrorist or paramilitary. This means that who to include in the death toll needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this rises above the fray as a terrorist incident, and is borderline on WP:N(E). GCG (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor terrorist attack (killed two, in addition to the perpetrators) in a region where terrorist attacks are (sadly) common. I agree with GCG that this is borderline even to have an article. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Liu Wen-hsiungEdit

Article: Liu Wen-hsiung (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Focus Taiwan

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Taiwanese politician, short but solid article. EternalNomad (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics hosts announcedEdit

Articles: 2024 Summer Olympics (talk, history) and 2028 Summer Olympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Olympic Committee announces that Paris will host the Summer Olympics in 2024, while Los Angeles will host in 2028.
Alternative blurb: ​An agreement with the International Olympic Committee for Paris to host the Summer Olympics in 2024 and Los Angeles to host in 2028 is announced by IOC President Thomas Bach.
News source(s): NBC News Le Monde Independent Reuters Guardian

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: This has been announced as a done deal that will be ratified at the next IOC meeting in Peru. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The IOC's press department—who are not exactly reticent when it comes to self-publicity—don't appear to be aware of this. The linked source itself says that the decision isn't going to be ratified until September. ‑ Iridescent 20:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
NBC mentions a statement by Thomas Bach on the IOC website. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, scratch that—the reason I wasn't seeing it is because this story is three weeks old and had already dropped off the front page of their website. Oppose as stale. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
If it's three weeks old why is it hitting the news in the US and France today? 331dot (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea. It's trivially easy to demonstrate both that the press release was dated 11 July, and that the story was in the press at that time.[1], [2], [3], [4] ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Those stories refer to the beginning of the crafting of this agreement, saying that the final decision would be announced in September. Today they announced the agreement ahead of time. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait (Leaning Oppose) - saw this, and was tempted to nominate. However, with the caveat that it is yet to be officially announced, I would wait for such an eventuality to post. Besides, articles need significant work to get up to standard anyway. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute the quality issues but how much more official can it get than the head of the IOC announcing this? 331dot (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The official step will be the formal elections at the 131st IOC Session. Merely coronations now but still the point when we should post. --LukeSurl t c 22:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll point out that the ITNR listing only states "announcement". In the past that has been after the IOC vote, but they decided to do something different this time. The formal vote will likely get far less attention now. The vote has been described as a 'ratification' which suggests the decision will not change. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that the ratification refers to the cities giving their assent. Abductive (reasoning) 06:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Bach was referring to the upcoming IOC meeting.(see the Reuters story). Both cities are already excited and celebrating this deal. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait (Leaning Support) - Unusual dual allocation so worthy of publication. But wait till the deal is official between the three parties, IOC, Paris bid committee and LA bid committee, some time in August. I know we are close, LA has declared their candidacy for 2028, but I would like formal statement from IOC that 2024 is Paris and 2028 is LA. Meanwhile, please upgrade the articles, especially 2028. Hektor (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now, pending quality updates Can you imagine how ridiculous it would look to post this months after it was known? It's extremely unlikely the "official" vote will even get much press. We're going to be getting "stale" votes. GCG (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
But this news is already stale. I say wait until it's a done deal. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a done deal. The 'ratification' being described for September suggests that the IOC voters won't be making the decision anymore, but agreeing to this agreement. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, it seems like it is a done deal. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not stale. The prior report indicated that the finalists for 24 & 28 were LA and Paris because no other quality bids were made. It was also stated that, logically, one city would get 24 and the other 28. In this, there was no great divergence from prior finalists announcements. The actual decision on the host city for each was just announced, so it is new. GCG (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Done deal now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the games articles are thin, but the bids article is much better. If I were capable of writing a coherent alt-blurb I would, but the bids might make a better bold link. --CosmicAdventure (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
No issue with that. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The IOC statement says The IOC will continue to work in close collaboration with Los Angeles in the lead-up to the possible ratification of the tripartite agreement by the full IOC membership at the 131st IOC Session in Lima, Peru, in September 2017. (emphasis mine). I know this is a done deal, but I don't think it's accurate to say the IOC have announced this. --LukeSurl t c 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Refusing to ratify this would mean no hosts. It's a formality. The decision has been made. Bach certainly qualifies as an IOC representative. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Alt blurb suggested. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the alt. In general blurbs should always be technically correct IMO. --LukeSurl t c 16:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stale per Iridescent. We've known since July 11 that LA and Paris were getting '24 and '28. That was the news story - the first ever double award. I don't think the order in which the two are going is that significant. Also, I doubt when this was added to ITN/R it was envisioned that there would be no other bidders except for the two winners.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for this to post now, with the alt blurb, though I understand the arguments about the timing of this (IOC not thinking of poor ITN editors when they make these announcements, very inconsiderate). If this fails now, I think we can pass this as ITN/R on 13 September when the formal selection/ratification occurs.
Could Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics be linked (maybe as bold) from the word "agreement" in the alt blurb? It contains the relevant details nicely.--LukeSurl t c 16:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that if it is posted now that it shouldn't be later. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Surely this is the first time we've had multiple votes each for stale, post, and wait? GCG (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Stale and wait alone are certainly a very unusual combination! I certainly can't recall a recent occurrence but The Rambling Man has a much better memory for this sort of thing than I do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my notvote to Support since this now seems to be a done deal and is being reported in the media to a greater extent. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Sam ShepardEdit

Article: Sam Shepard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Playwright, actor, author, Chuck Yeager in The Right StuffHektor (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose—not just paragraphs but entire sections are unreferenced. ‑ Iridescent 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Iridescent. Huge swaths of unreferenced material here, most apparent in the "Writing and acting" section. Getting this article in shape could be a daunting task. A good start to getting this cleaned up would be to verify his actual "birth name," and then go on from there. Christian Roess (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Sam Shephard died on Thursday, July 27. But his death was announced today (Monday, July 31). And that's across all media sources. Therefore, listing it today is justified, imo. However, in my experience posting to RD/ITN, this has often been a point of contention. So I say we keep it here under the July 31st section. As is. Anyhow, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. Christian Roess (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    This was previously raised, and I believe the consensus was that we need to place this on the date, but we could use a "NEW" tag in the header to draw attention. GCG (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    @GreatCaesarsGhost: Is this a very recent consensus? Leonard Cohen's was left on the 10th. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    I think I'm misremembering this, but up in yellow on this page we have "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." The "event" for RD would be the death, not the announcement of a death. We could be seen in this case as playing with the dates to keep a big name up (assuming it ever goes up). GCG (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    We had a discussion about this a few months back. The consensus was that where there was a "significant" gap between the event happening and the event being reported that we would take the date of appearance in the earliest reliable sources as the marker for which section it should appear in. IIRC there was no consensus on exactly what "significant" means, but 1-2 days definitely isn't and 5-6 days definitely is. This was about 4 days which falls in the grey area, but personally I'd have placed it on the day of the announcement (31st). The [New] header tag is a much more recent idea, and that can be used to highlight any nomination made in the day before yesterday's section or older (use in yesterday's section is permitted but not encouraged), regardless of why the nomination was made there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    yes, that makes sense and I go along with that. Also, thanks to GCG for the link to that previous discussion Thyrduulf is referring to. OK, here's my take: This section is called ITN. The question is: when is the RD first "in the news"? Sam Shepard's death was "in the news" on July 31. It was not "in the news" on July 27, the date of Shephard's death. So let's post it under July 31. Next, we don't necessarily use a notability criteria to decide on an RD posting. We evaluate an article's quality first. But let's not ignore that the mainstream media does have a notability criteria for their obits. They do decide which deaths are "notable" deaths, and these are posted promptly. But on the other hand (as often as not) with less notable figures, there can be a lag time for their death announcement. And that lag times shows up in the RD nomination process. Here's a rather stark, but recent example: Sterling Seagrave. According to this source, Seagrave died on May 1, 2017 (see here: Verso: Sterling Seagrave 1937-2017). But his death was only announced 3 days ago (July 31). Right now, Seagrave's Wikipedia article has not been updated since he died. But if it is revised, and meets our quality standard, shouldn't we list his RD nomination under the July 31 banner? Of course. This seems to be the point Thryduulf is making: that's a "significant" gap. But how about posting the nomination today? I say that should be a consideration, because we still don't have Seagrave's obituary notice via any mainstream media sources. And the only obit source is from his daughter, which has been posted at Seagrave's publisher's website. Christian Roess (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    For a notice of a death, a close family member (who is not estranged and not in a dispute with the (allegedly) deceased) posting on a publisher's website is usually going to be sufficiently reliable. It's not independent, but that requirement is not the most important for verification of objective facts. If you do want to make sure, then look for coverage in local newspapers in the area where he lived and/or died. If they all report the death on 31 July then put the nomination on that date (mark it [New]). If there is nothing other than the publisher before today then put it on today's date, but I suspect that regardless it will be sorted to the 31st if/when added to the template. The oldest currently there is from the 30th so there is still time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisisEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Reuters, Al Arabiya
Nominator's comments: This is heading towards a war. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a very slow moving story, not appropriate for Ongoing. It is an area to watch, no question, but we're not seeing intense changes to the situation each day as we'd expect in Ongoing. (And this specific event appears more political blustering, no firm actions taken by any side yet). --MASEM (t) 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "This is heading towards a war."
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. This is one of several nominations for this event in recent weeks without any significant change or worsening of relations. Qatar, by all accounts, are handling this rather well. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing substantive happening yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Stale] RD: Jeanne MoreauEdit

Article: Jeanne Moreau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: French screen icon Sherenk1 (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Lead actress in many landmark French films, such as Diary of a Chambermaid. Hektor (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose her notability is not in question (nor part of this discussion); the article quality is insufficient (e.g. inadequate referencing) for it to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks fine. Lots of in-line references.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    It's not about how many references there are, not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two sections have zero references. --Jayron32 17:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you please add CN tags at the end of each sentence where you want a reference?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a BLP, so we should be looking to reference any and all claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
In terms of screen space, they were the two largest sections in the whole article, so I'm not sure how you needed guidance in finding them. But OK, they've been appropriately tagged. Add refs for those, and you'll be good. --Jayron32 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

July 30Edit


Venezuelan Constituent AssemblyEdit

Articles: Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election, 2017 (talk, history) and 2017 Constituent Assembly of Venezuela (talk, history)
Blurb: Venezuelans chose more than 500 representatives who will make up a constituent assembly in a controversial election boycotted by the opposition.
Alternative blurb: Venezuela elects a constituent assembly in a vote that is boycotted by the opposition.
Alternative blurb II: Venezuela elects a constituent assembly in a vote that is boycotted by the opposition and attracts worldwide criticism.
News source(s): The Guardin

Nominator's comments: Besides being WP:ITNR, it is a polemic election: Decisive event during the Venezuelan protests, more than 14 deaths during the election day, several governments' spokespersons announced that they won't recognize the results and the United States vowed to take action against the election. Jamez42 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on principle but we need to definitely wait to know what the blurb should be. Far too much claims and misinformation from the two sides in Venezuela as well as other countries (like the US) trying to swing support. It's difficult to discern what the "truth" is here. -MASEM (t) 05:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Added a blurb as well. Maybe too long. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits. This is not ITNR as this isn't a general election or change in head of state, but given the turmoil in Venezuela this does merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not on ITNR and the current blurb isn't neutral either. This could well be an important development in Venezuelan politics, but I think we should wait for the new constitution to be either voted on in a referendum or enacted without one. Forming the constitutional assembly is not in itself the big issue here - that is the constitution that they will produce. Modest Genius talk 10:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose An uncontested election in a country on the verge of civil war is not an election. This is an administrative matter that will have no lasting impact, as it's results will be not be acknowledged by the opposition. We rejected a similar vote 11 days ago in the same country for this reason. To post this now would confer legitimacy and show WP:UNDUE preference for Maduro. GCG (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The prior vote was essentially a poll of the populace called by the legislature. This is far more substantive. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, note that opinion pulling shows the NO vote eviscerating the YES vote. A success for YES, especially a large one, would show the boycott held. GCG (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support an important development in the crisis, though obviously we wait till the results are announced. I've added an alt blurb that I think is more neutral. I think it is important to note the boycott in the blurb. I don't know if will make sense to quote the partisan makeup of the elected assembly in the blurb (i.e. "biggest party") like we usually do for parliamentary elections. --LukeSurl t c 12:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The preliminary (and official) results, according to the president of the Electoral Council, are that eight million people voted, meaning a turnout of around 40%; the final results will be very similar. The Public Ministry declared that the official number of deaths at the moment is 10. If possible, I recommend including in the blurb that the election took place among violence. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I support the topic but, as others have said, the blurb could be improved. I suggest including a reference to the criticism by members of the international community and US sanctions in order to demonstrate newsworthiness.Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Those elections have had international impact. Cambalachero (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Enough supports. Why are we not posting? Sherenk1 (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been a week since the nomination, the Constituency Assembly was swore in and it had it first session, so I added the Assembly article as article2 and I'll provide some of the highlights this week. I'm not sure about how's the best way to summarize the events in a blurb:
  • The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz was removed by the Assembly and Tarek William Saab was named as her replacement.
  • Diosdado Cabello declared that the Assembly would take place for two years (meaning that the new constitution may take this long to be drafted).
  • The European Union, Mercosur, the Organization of American States and the Holy See and several states condemned the election.
  • Nicolás Maduro becomes the fourth head of state sanctioned by the United States along with Kim Jong Un, Robert Mugabe and Bashar al-Assad.
  • Over 10 deaths during the election day.
  • Smartmatic, the provider of the electoral machines, declared that the results were tampered. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Anton VratušaEdit

Article: Anton Vratuša (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Vecer

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Yugoslavian and Slovenian politician and diplomat, former PM of Slovenia EternalNomad (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The last sentence of the "Life" section needs a citation, and the article needs at least some mention of what he did between 1980 and his death. Additionally, but not standing in the way of posting, the article could do with expansion and the picture needs a caption. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Added some references. I think it's good to go, though expansion is always possible. After 1980, he was mostly retired from public offices, so no need to go in details on that. --Tone 10:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article meets minimum standards. --LukeSurl t c 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - leaning toward weak support. I'm having difficulty with verifying some of the sources. Citation #9 (https://www.gzs.si/pripone/ec+diplomacy+31_5.pdf) is the most glaring, with a 404 gateway error. But it does seem to be close to meeting minimum standards. Christian Roess (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed the reference with another one, the SAZU biography. Posting. --Tone 08:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

July 29Edit


July 28Edit


[Closed] RD: iPod nanoEdit

Alright, the point has been made. Nomination in good faith, but snowball's chance in hell, etc, etc, let's spend our time elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: iPod Nano (talk, history) and iPod Shuffle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Since Tone & Masem briefly floated the possibility of Microsoft Paint and Adobe Flash appearing as a RD, how about this? Mainly this nomination is to see how much support there is for non-living RD nominations, if that is even a thing. Notably current policy specifically says non-living entities are excluded, so if someone snow closes this citing that policy, I won't mind. This is unlikely to make it as a blurb since the product is relatively minor. Banedon (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose deaths of living organisms only. Where does this slippery slope lead us, the death of concepts, the death of musical groups, the death of hopes? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Many would argue that hope died a long time ago! Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Musical groups are made of living organisms *gasp*. Banedon (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Clearly this is in relation to the "retirement" of an item, or a "disbanding" of a band. Either way, it's a no-brainer oppose snow close. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per policy. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose RD. The current policy does not exclude non-living things, it just doesn't give them an automatic entry. That said, its very difficult to determine a precise death point for machines/devices/products - date production is ceased, date withdrawn from sale, date support is ended, date spares stop being produced, date spares stop being sold, date last one functioning ceases to do so, etc. This means that (imo at least) they are fundamentally unsuited to RD as we can give no context at all to the listing. If you want to propose a blurb explaining what the news is then I'll evaluate that with an open mind, but I do oppose RD. Thryduulf (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It's hard for me to see this as a blurb. Even if we take the iPod to be revolutionary and therefore worth a blurb, it's not being discontinued, only the nano version is. I'll give this another day and if nobody likes it, I'll withdraw the nom. Banedon (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a living organism, and not a "death" but a retirement/termination of a product line. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This isn't a death. "Death" in the sense of RD means literal death. Ceasing to be. Expiring and going to meet one's maker… --LukeSurl t c 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and it's completely ridiculous to call this an RD. No on so many levels. Modest Genius talk 10:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Stale] RD: John G. MorrisEdit

Article: John G. Morris (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT [6]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Long time photo editor for Life, NYT. GCG (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose The article is in good shape overall, but in the award section there are two cn tags and two dead sources. A good clean-up sourcing in that section and I'll give this nomination my support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the "awards" section could be turned into prose in the "career" section. I also think the prose in the "publications" section could be moved to the "Career" section.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose lead is too weak, referencing is far too poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Paul ShanleyEdit

good faith, but no support, and if we discount the implied outrage WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS this still amounts to undue weight, and skirts the outer bounds of NPOV and BLP μηδείς (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Paul Shanley (talk, history)
Blurb: Paul Shanley, a convicted and notorious pedofile priest, is released from prison
Alternative blurb: Paul Shanley, an American priest convicted of raping a child, is released from prison.
News source(s): NBC News, NPR
Nominator's comments: This has been all over the major news networks, especially because there was and still is high opposition regarding this release. 73.142.103.7 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can you link to actual stories about this? It seems sensational to post his mere release.331dot (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is posted we'll need to be very careful about phrasing the blurb for BLP reasons - avoiding value judgements completely as we should not be making any in Wikipedia's voice (even if near universally shared) and cannot source anything else inline. I've suggested an alt-blurb that I think avoids any issues, but I don't have an opinion atm about whether this should be posted or not but very many people get released from prison after serving sentences for very serious crims, so the bar to ITN-notability is very high so it needs to be clear why we are featuring this one and I'm not sure that it currently is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, his incarceration didn't merit an ITN in 2005 and if an individual with a similar level of influence was jailed now it wouldn't be posted either. He's an appalling person and understandably some are enraged about his release but it looks like a run of the mill parole and not especially significant. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose who cares, on an encyclopedic level, that one paedophile out of hundreds of thousands (or millions?) has been released from prison? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not newsworthy for someone to be released after serving their whole sentence (meager as it may be). Any expectation that he would serve longer is misplaced and more suited for the sentencing phase. I think if we had truly massive news coverage and a GA, we could look the other way on the newsworthiness; that's really not the case here. GCG (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted to RD] RD: Charlie GardEdit

Article: Charlie Gard case (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Following a controversial legal case, Charlie Gard dies from mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.
News source(s): BBC The Guardian

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Highly publicised death following extended legal battle in the United Kingdom between the parents and the staff of Great Ormond Street Hospital. Posting as Charlie Gard would be fine, as it is a direct redirect to the nominated article. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support I'd like to see a bit more sourcing in the opening paragraph under medical background, but overall the article is in decent shape and meets our standards. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, dead person does not have a standalone article, so cannot meet RD rules. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - if the word case at the end of the title inhibits what is a (formerly) BLP and servicable article from being listed at RD and ITN, should I boldly move the page? It was previously located at Charlie Gard, but was moved per a talk page discussion to the current title to fit with the consensus established by Ashya King case and Terri Schiavo case per naming convention. Thoughts? Stormy clouds (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Guess what, the word case is at the end for a reason. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of this. As nominator, I support posting it in whatever form you wish to title it. The word case denotes, accurately, that the article is not about Gard in its entirety. However, this would not pass as a blurb, and is in the news. I feel it should be on the main page, the article condition assumed appropriate, rather than holding it back for semantics. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an RD; deceased does not have an article. and I suspect wouldn't merit one(though his case and the controversy about him does). 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
We made an exception for Ian Brady, so it don't know why we can't do the same here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
It appears I did not comment on that discussion but in reviewing it, it seems that some argued that Brady likely merited a standalone article. I am not convinced that Gard does. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is well-documented in case is very notable. Death has attracted international coverage. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the case might be notable (in the tabloid press), the individual is not. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Then we are very busy, as we have to inform the BBC[1], The Telegraph[2], The Guardian[3], The Chicago Tribune[4], the Irish Independent[5], The Irish Time[6], The Washington Post[7], Reuters[8], The Associated Press[9] The New York Times[10] and a shed-load of other reputable sources that they have all been arbitrarily demoted to tabloid status by an IP editor on Wikipedia. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous comment and that of 331. A tear-jerker for sure, but that's all. Sca (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Support invoking WP:IAR re lack of stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Also support blurb if that is the only way this will get posted.Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - a death that has been in the news. People will be looking for this article. The name will be conspicuous by omission if left off the RD section. Arguments over whether this technically meets the RD criteria seem pedantic. If this is technically excluded from RD then we've encountered a rule that prevents us from improving/maintaining Wikipedia. --LukeSurl t c 21:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • No comment yet but I need to stress that "People will be looking for this article." is not a valid reason for ITN. We are not a news ticker or a newspaper so people coming here expecting to find news stories are using WP wrong. We do want to highlight articles of good quality that are also in the news as to help draw interested editors to help improve further, though. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:ITN#Purpose - One of the stated purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". I may be interpreting this in an incorrect manner (and am fully open to constructive admin criticism for doing so), but it seems to support User:LukeSurl. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support demonstrably global news and certainly fulfilling one of the ITN tenets of featuring items our readers would be looking for, medical conditions and legal cases make it even more encyclopeically valuable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral I see the coverage and that the article is in good shape, and I don't see a problem with having an RD for a person that doesn't have a standalone article on principle. But the counterissue that the child never got past a year, so there's clearly nothing about him as a person that we can document, which becomes similar to the situation around putting Stubbs the cat in RD. Alternatively if we think of this as a blurb about a significant case over treatment rights in the UK, the problem is that there doesn't appear to be anything groundbreaking here yet to change the law or challenge that (something more akin to the creation of the AMBER Alert - we'd not have noted the death of Amber, but this would be more appropriate). And then one has to ask how many other such challenges like this happen out there and why this one is special to have this much news coverage. Hence my neutrality here, I could see this as a valid thing to post but also can see it problematic that reflects Western media bias. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, this is a time I need to remind the admins; no vote counting, judge it by the arguments. This case does not meet RD qualifications, there is no lasting impact, and it is a tabloid story. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Abductive: - Judging by the arguments, all three of these complaints can be addressed with relative ease. Multiple editors have invoked WP:IAR, which trumps RD qualifications. There is the same amount of lasting impact for this RD as there are for most, if not all, others - someone is dead. Finally, consult the cornucopia of non-tabloid, reputable sources added above in my response to a similar complaint. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The no lasting impact thing proves that this is tabloid story. Multiple users are wrong, and the reason why is that they think like tabloids. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to make a couple of points. First Charlie Gard absolutely would pass WP:ANYBIO. The only reason he doesn't have his own article is for the very good and practical reason that it is easier to fold it all into the broader discussion of his legal case. Secondly there is precedent for posting people to RD in such situations as we recently did in the case of the notorious serial killer Ian Brady. I concur that this should not be the norm, but this does seem like one of those situations where WP:COMMONSENSE should prevail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM and Ad Orientem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD per IAR. With everyone from Trump to the Pope weighing in, this is a truly international story and the article is good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree and TRM. Ks0stm (TCGE) 08:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly meets the requirements. Rest in heavenly peace. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @TDKR Chicago 101: whether you support or oppose this, it does not meet the requirements for an automatic RD entry as there is no article that is solely a biography of the person who died. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Covered in international media, I would dispute the claim it doesn't have a lasting impact- there's a BBC article at the moment entitled Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything, which as the title suggests lays out the likely lasting impact of the case, including the impact to the reputation of GOSH, the impact of digital media and the court battle. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is posted, it should be as a blurb and not RD, as it is the event of his death and the controversy regarding him that is notable, leaving aside the fact he has no standalone article.331dot (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as RD If the supporters feel this event is so notable that it needs to be posted, judge it on its merits as a blurb. What we are trying to do is squeeze a story that does not merit a blurb under the very low standard of an RD. Fine; but RD does have standards, which is that the person has to be notable enough to have an article. This is a clear cut case of WP:1E. RS are perfectly capable of posting tabloid stories, which is what this. We do not post everything that appears in RS, per WP:KARDASHIAN. GCG (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't necessarily call it a tabloid story, but definitely a case of media bias to pick up on one specific case where there was issues over parental control of treatment options over the hospital/government side, which is something that happens all the time. Why this case got called out of many, I don't know, but we should avoid catering to that. (In the states, we had a similar problem with Death of JonBenét Ramsey, in which most recognized that the only reason the case got as much media attention was that the family was white and affluent. I don't know/can't tell if that's the case here, but that's also not the only reason). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Tabloid implies lurid or vulgar sensationalism. Debate related to the end-of-life law is fair game. When we pick up one case and make it the center of repeated and outsized coverage, it quickly becomes lurid and vulgar. GCG (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment -it now appears that, aside from the RD nomination, there is a further debate as to whether or not this merits a blurb. Would such a debate procedurally necessitate a new nom, or would it occur here? Stormy clouds (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need a new discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb. This child has generated more coverage and controversy than any of us likely will. His death is undoubtedly 'in the news', and at this stage no one seems to be arguing about the quality of the article title. The fact that a congenitally ill child who made international news has a brief personal biography seems beside the point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it's pretty clear there's a well argued consensus in favour of at least RD, so let's post that ASAP, and we'll see what happens about a blurb. Unnecessary accusations of tabloid-brains have been proven suitably ridiculous as this has been covered in RS and globally. The debate here also should focus on the fact that we have an article, we have a precedent, we have no reason not to post this under the current criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD. I read a consensus in favor of posting, though certainly not universal approval. Much of the disagreement (though not all) centers on the lack of a standalone article for Charlie Gard. The current RD rules allow any person with a stand-alone article to be posted without regards to notability / significance provided their article is of sufficient quality. However, to my mind, there is nothing about the current rules that prohibit posting at RD for individuals who lack a stand-alone article, provided a consensus exists to do so, but such persons won't automatically qualify for posting. I suppose if someone wants to view this as an exercise of IAR then they are free to do so. It is certainly in keeping with the spirit of IAR that one shouldn't let inflexible rules stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia. Dragons flight (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    Although I disagree with the decision, I must commend the elocution of the judgement. Thanks for taking the time, @Dragons flight:. GCG (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'm late to this discussion, but I completely agree with Dragons flight's decision and reasoning. I've been rather disgusted by the relentless and disproportionate tabloid coverage, but RD is the correct place for this. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Inder KumarEdit

Article: Inder Kumar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rediff

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian Actor Sherenk1 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article needs expanding - there are only two prose sections, "Controversy" and "Death." What about his life before 2014? On the plus side it's nice to have a fully referenced filmography for once.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC) I still have concerns; see below. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support post artcle expansion Regards, theTigerKing  18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Article needs a little more sourcing. There are three or four cn tags. Should be easy to source. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - All cn tags now gone, article looks good.--Stemoc 01:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not ready to support yet. I feel the lengthy Controversy section may be WP:UNDUE. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed, I'm trying to rework it. There's a lot of fluff in there, but I'm noting he was granted bail within two months, but no mention of a trial? GCG (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I think the volume of the "controversies" section gives it undue weight, the rest of the article seems okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Pakistan PM court verdictEdit

Article: Panama Papers case (Pakistan) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Based on the Supreme Court verdict relating to Panama Papers, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (pictured) is forced to resign on corruption allegations.
Alternative blurb: ​The Supreme Court of Pakistan delivers a verdict in a case filed following the Panama Papers leak, forcing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (pictured) to resign.
Alternative blurb II: Pakistan's Supreme Court has disqualified Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office following an investigation into corruption allegations.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualifies Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office following a corruption investigation.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resigned after the Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualification verdict.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Notable. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support disqualification of a Prime Minister is really huge news. I would support it for ITNR.Amirk94391 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on signficance (if the Prime Minister of Pakistan is head of state this might be ITNR) but I'm not a fan of the blurb - can it be more succinct? I haven't evaluated the article. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, wait until the article is brought into shape. I share Thryduulf's concerns about the blurb, and have proposed an alternative. Article has sentences and paragraphs lacking references, and suffers from an over-reliance on primary and/or out of date sources in several cases. The lead, for instance, does not reflect this verdict as I am writing this. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's only "head of government" but I'd still support it for ITNR. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding and support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. PM forced to resign due to improper activity is notable. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note relates to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017#.5BClosed.5D_Calibri_font_in_.22Fontgate.22. --Saqib (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, as the removal of a PM from office is notable. --LukeSurl t c 08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Supportper LukeSurl. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hang on a moment We've gotten a string of supports here, but the fact remains that there are statements in the article, including statements about living people, without sources. We should not post unless and until these have been addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: which statements are you referring to ? please point out so that I fix them without any delay.--Saqib (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Saqib: After a brief look: most of "opposition response", and a number of sentences in "Before the Supreme Court". Vanamonde (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: what do you think of it now? [7]. --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: the article seems to be alright. I think it should be posted now without any delay.Amirk94391 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Not fantastic, but better now, certainly. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support If there were issues with article per Vanamonde, I don't see them now, and this is clearly of significance (a sitting world leader being forced to resign). --MASEM (t) 13:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
  • Support – Head of government of the world's most populous democracy quits. Sca (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Since when? Thought they had less than 1.32 billion people of India Regards, theTigerKing  17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support should be posted by now! --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Significant development. Should be posted without further delay! Blurb - Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resigns following the Supreme Court's disqualification verdictRegards, theTigerKing  17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This seems to have already been decided, but I'll toss in a wholehearted support for what it's worth. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Why hasn't this been posted? Sca (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Surprising that this article was ready with enough support some 10 hours ago and still not posted? Sherenk1 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb. Yes, I voted, but this has been ready for a while, and has unanimous support. Attention needed on the image. The last time I posted an image I fracked it up, so I'm just going to pass the buck on that. Vanamonde (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: You seem to be around: would you be willing to switch the image? Vanamonde (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Never mind, handling it elsewhere, since response time here has been very slow in the past few days. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've only just seen this ping. Due to illness I've got limited concentration available today, so I'm not undertaking complex admin tasks at the moment. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Jeff BezosEdit

Consensus is clearly against. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jeff Bezos (talk, history)
Blurb: Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos briefly becomes the world's richest person
News source(s): [8] [9] [10]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: He was briefly the world's richest person, since a lot of his money is held in AMZN stock, and AMZN just missed earnings. Regardless, CNBC says "he will likely take the crown from Gates more permanently in the coming days and weeks", and if we accept stock fluctuations at face value then statements like "Bill Gates is the world's richest person" are unprintable since if MSFT drops 50% tomorrow he'll suddenly no longer be the richest. Since there's no certainty the next time this title changes it'll be in the news, and since "Bezos' rise carries important symbolic weight — signaling Amazon's unbridled power and value, presenting a new face of outsized wealth to the world and heralding a new kind of billionaire who is skeptical of philanthropy and has massive reach in culture, technology and media' (per CNBC), I'm nominating this anyway. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I would support posting this if Bezos was on top for longer than 'briefly'. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in very good shape plus it's not everyday a person becomes the world's richest for a few moments. Worth noting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with 331dot that "briefly" is something of a problem. Is there an annual summary list or something a little less subject to hour-by-hour fluctuations? Also, the rank ordering of billionaires is of relatively little importance compared to most things that make it to ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm a little sceptical of this news story. Billionares' net worth aren't figures kept diligently updated on a spreadsheet somewhere, these estimates require a lot of guesswork about the value of various forms of assets, including those that aren't public. With good reason, World's richest person is a redirect to the article about the Forbes annual The World's Billionaires report, which is slower, more in-depth reporting. I'd prefer to wait until the next Forbes report and post that. Note that even with Forbes "world's richest person" excludes dictators and royalty who may be even wealthier. --LukeSurl t c 08:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if this weren't a fleeting happening, I don't think this is quite newsworthy enough. These folks' wealth is in stocks: stock prices fluctuate. Changes are inevitable, and unsurprising. Moreover this list, as LukeSurl pointed out, does not contain certain categories of people. Overall, not enough to be featured. Vanamonde (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact this only lasted a few hours shows how fluid this designation is. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Notional Wealth. Does not make any impact whatsoever! Regards, theTigerKing  18:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Financial willy waving. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the above... unless I'm in his will. In which case I enthusiastically support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 27Edit


[Posted] RD: D. L MenardEdit

Article: D. L. Menard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks to be fully-referenced and ready to go. Christian Roess (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support 45 rpm section is cited from discogs, which I believe is a wiki. Otherwise good. GCG (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @GreatCaesarsGhost:: Discodogs is a website that lists all of his music work and it not a wiki. To avoid any opposition, I have added new sources to the section including obits. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:ALBUMAVOID lists discogs among "Websites with user-generated content" that "should never be used as sources." But with the changes this is now good to go. GCG (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Everything is referenced and it looks good to go to me!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: June ForayEdit

Article: June Foray (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Unfortunately, in terms of roles (of which she had many) much is unsourced, though I see a few "overarching" sources that could be used [11] [12] that can help. MASEM (t) 04:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

But dahlink, who needs references ven you haf tcharm? – Sca (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unfortunately, lack of refs. Aiken D 21:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Nitish KumarEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Nitish Kumar (talk, history)
Blurb: Nitish Kumar is sworn in as Chief Minister of Bihar within 24 hours of his resignation from the same post.
News source(s): [source]

Article updated
 RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 07:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this sort of stuff is not infrequent in multi-party democracies, common in south Asia, and more common still in those states and provinces featuring tussles between national and regional parties. Not enough of a big deal to post. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Internal politics. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting machinations of domestic politics. A quirky headline does not and ITN entry make, but it could work well at DYK if the article is sufficiently expanded (or qualifies for GA). Modest Genius talk 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose local news, not a change in head of state/government. EternalNomad (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 26Edit


[Ready] 2017 Gujarat floodEdit

Article: 2017 Gujarat flood (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 213 people are reported to have been killed in floods in the Indian state of Gujarat.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Indian Express

 Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. Much like the China floods that were nominated not too long ago, this is the monsoon season in that area and this sort of flooding doesn't seem unusual. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Due to the number of people killed. Article looks good and well sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a disaster of this magnitude generally mandates a blurb. Article seems well sourced, though is probably at the minimum detail required. Regularity of event doesn't really sway me, as, for example, we post details destructive hurricanes even though an annual hurricane season is predictable of itself. --LukeSurl t c 21:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I tried to find some historical figures to weigh how common this is, but failed. To LukeSurl's point, there is a difference between regularity and predictability. If we start posting natural disasters on ITN every week, we'd have to reevaluate our standards. But that is not a problem yet. GCG (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • With 3 support and one weak oppose, this seems good enough for an admin to make the call. Marking ready. GCG (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: While the article has enough content, it needs a good amount of copyediting. It currently reads quite clunkily. Trying to do some of that myself, but some of the information is not presented in a format that's easy to understand for readers (for example, The Banaskantha, Patan, Gandhinagar, Morbi, Surendranagar, Mehsana and Sabarkantha received 267%, 208%, 189%, 174%, 172%, 130% and 115% rainfall respectively in the said period.) SpencerT♦C 18:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @Spencer: fair point. I've made an effort to copy-edit, though in all honesty part of the problem is with the source material itself; hasty reporting in smaller English newspapers in south Asia tends to mean that grammar goes out the window. Vanamonde (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Renominated mistakenly. Already reverted. 200+ death is significant. Considered as the “the worst flood of the century”[13] in north Gujarat by state Chief Minister as the north Gujarat receives little rain in most years. Highlights changing climate.--Nizil (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Transgender ban in US militaryEdit

No consensus, and as noted, some official policy announcement would have to be made, and we don't really do mere tweets μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military (talk, history) and Transgender rights in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States bans their transgender citizens from serving in their military.
News source(s): "Trump: Transgender people 'can't serve' in US military". BBC News. 26 July 2017. Retrieved 28 July 2017.; Gunter, Joel (27 July 2017). "'My stomach dropped': Transgender troops hit hard by Trump ban". BBC News. Retrieved 28 July 2017.; Stark, Liz (26 July 2017). "Hartzler: Transgender service members 'costly' to military". CNN Politics. Retrieved 28 July 2017.
Nominator's comments: Article3 is not showing up but it's Vicky HartzlerZigzig20s (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - big news without any doubt, but it is being overshadowed by many other Trumpisms. ITN can't realistically become the Trump News Network, so I don't know is this is the story I, as a metaphorical editor of a news establishment, not an online encyclopedia, would run with. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not about Trump. This is about transgender rights and (inter)national security.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, the story is just a tweet by his Drumpfiness, so yes, it is. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. There have been protests in the US as well as internationally.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
People protest Trump daily. If we posted them all, we might as well call this the Trump Ticker. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think they're protesting Trump the individual (who cares? we'll never become his BFFs), but the policies of the commander-in-chief when it comes to transgender rights and (inter)national security.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Trump has also been tweeting that he dislikes AG Sessions, but Sessions still has a job. His tweets are not official policy. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Who cares about DJT? This is about transgender rights (transphobic work discrimination) and how it may harm our (inter)national security if transgender translators can't perform HUMINT for other US military personnel and their allies for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
There has been no change to their rights, just a tweet. The policy to expressly permit them to serve was never fully implemented, this is just the status quo. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nothing has actually happened yet, this is just a tweet by Trump. The military has made no moves to implement this yet and didn't even know he was announcing it. Trans soldiers being expressly permitted to serve was a relatively new policy as well, that hadn't been implemented yet. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not altogether clear that the blurb is actually true. Trump has tweeted his preference and what he wants to see happen. But that is far from the current reality. This may yet occur. But until it does, we can't say this. A tweet is not a formal policy directive. This appears to be premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. Trump's tweet has not actually established any official ban as the current suggested blurb implies. Funcrunch (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. The "policy" appears to be up in the air: Trump says one thing, the army bigwig says no change will be made until something else. If we have more clarity on this, perhaps. Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The generals have said that tweets are not official policy guidance. They are smarter than we are; they're disregarding his tweets. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2017 CONCACAF Gold CupEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the CONCACAF Gold Cup concludes with the United States defeating Jamaica in the final.
News source(s): ESPNFC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: USMNT wins 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup, the biennial international men's football championship of the North, Central American and Caribbean CONCACAF Confederation of FIFA. JanderVK (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm missing it but I don't see this on the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    Not, so ITNR flag removed, heading added, blurb added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's a reason why the CONCACAF cup isn't included in ITNR - it's almost an irrelevance in world football terms, because most of the members are tiny Caribbean islands who get dominated by the US and Mexico every time (between them, those two teams have won 13 out of the 14 tournaments). We already post five football stories per year; this is nowhere near the same level of importance. Modest Genius talk 10:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Canada won once, ZOMG! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
In the interest of fairness, the runner up has been someone else 9 of 14 times. So it's not exactly a US v. Mexico tourney. GCG (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know I'm wasting my breath, but I'll reiterate my previous opinion that these confederation cups need to be considered as a group. Either we post them all, or only the truly relevant Euros and Copa America. GCG (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Almost no meaningful prose describing the tournament. The "article" is not an article but rather a long page of tables with an introductory sentence or two about each. Not quality writing at all. --Jayron32 12:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - as per Modest Genius. It's arbitrary, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In essence, if you were to rank them this would be the #4 or #5 confederation tournament. --LukeSurl t c 13:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Ahead of Oceania, where New Zealand squashes small island nations every time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - per logic above. The Gold Cup, at least internationally, is of minimal importance. I, for one, an avid football fan, had only passing knowledge that it was on, and no notion as to who won before seeing this nomination. I would place this on par with the AFC Asian Cup in terms of importance (and that is minimal). It is far surpassed by the Euros, Copa America and the AfCoN. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Seriously, this Gold Cup tournament is much much bigger than that women's cricket "World Cup" by any standard. STSC (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, the women's cricket World Cup is important. You keep bringing it up even a week after it concluded. :)
I'm with him: no more posts about dames! GCG (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I look forward to STSC verifying their claim with reliable sources in an objective manner, otherwise we can discount that position as pure WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
So a competition open to the best nations[by whom?] in the whole world is objectively less important on all measures than one open to only those from ~​16 of the world? [Citation needed] Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Worked for the Ashes. and the Rugby Championship. Six Nations. Boat Race... GCG (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Nobody claims (afaik) the boat race is more important than the Women's Cricket World Cup, just that it is the most important event in rowing. This is not the most important event in men's football by a very long way, it's not even in the top 4. Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
"BOAT RACE KLAXON"!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In terms of history, organization, venues, worldwide audience, and even the size of the cup, the Gold Cup is by far the bigger one (all the RS can be found in the article). I mean who's really watching the female cricket? Its blurb was posted on ITN just because of political correctness? That's a conspiracy theory, not quite original research. STSC (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • STSC I do hope your tongue was in your cheek when you wrote that as I find it rather offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • STSC It's fair to compare rationale for (not) posting something, but not directly compare interest. CFP should not be rejected on ITNC for being a second tier, amateur, college event when NCAA BB is on ITNR. But there will invariably be some second tier events in one sport that eclipse the first tier of others in audience. It's the primacy of the WWC within that sport that makes it important. As to how many people watch it, the answer is a) more than usual and b) enough to exceed the fringe threshold in the minds of ITN editors. GCG (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. "We already post five football stories per year; this is nowhere near the same level of importance [as other football stories]". Banedon (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Soccer is plenty represented in ITN/R. If the USA men's team won a soccer tournament, that tells me all I need to know about the level of competition. If we beat Jamaica, that tells me more than I need to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
'Murica - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Geoffrey Gurrumul YunupinguEdit

Article: Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Couple of unferenced statements, but generally in decent shape. Vanamonde (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support yes, a couple of refs needed, otherwise just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Live album release and some of the Career claims aren't referenced still. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess it wasn't: I had assumed, incorrectly, that it was in the following ref. The content is not to be found in mainstream refs after a quick search, so removed. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and marking ready, article is good to go. BencherliteTalk 11:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @ posting admin: in your place, I'd IAR and remove Bob DeMoss, which has been on the main page for a couple of days, instead of Jim Vance, which I just posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment. I was just about to post this but I got an edit conflict with Vanamonde93 adding Jim Vance. As Vance would be displaced by Yunupingu adding him now feels a bit pointy, so I'll leave Vance up there for a few hours before posting this (unless someone beats me to to it). Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't we just add a second line? That is done occasionally, no? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it merits discussion, and with this READY so soon after death, there's little harm in waiting 6 hours for comment. My vote is to post per WP:WIAE. We post images of Mohammad, the article for Emperor Shōwa is entitled "Hirohito." I totally respect the argument, but without wiping the entry as well, what's the point? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually those are false equivalencies. A better example is Madonna/Bono. I support this suggestion and think we should change title of article, with full name in the first line. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for being sensitive, but it's not possible for us to list this on the MP without using his name, in one form or another. That article suggests that any form of the name - not just the full one - would have to be avoided. I think WP:NOTCENSORED has to apply - we don't avoid using a neutral and factual phrase on the MP just because a certain group of people might find it objectionable. Modest Genius talk 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Article says DOD is 7/25, not 7/26. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted, replacing DeMoss as requested above. Unfortunately there is no way to not name the person in RD to meet cultural requirements. Stephen 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 World Aquatics ChampionshipsEdit

Consensus against. --Tone 18:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 World Aquatics Championships (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): [14] and a variety of others

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Multi-sport international event, plenty of subpages (e.g. North Korea at the 2017 World Aquatics Championships) most of which are being updated. Banedon (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed article is a stat dump and what prose is there is hardly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think this is a "multi-sport" event. The events are all aquatic events in a pool. The Olympics considers aquatics to be one sport. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
To clarify I oppose as ongoing as ongoing is not generally meant for sports events in progress; the end will be posted as ITNR if article is OK. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Firstly, this isn't finished yet. The article itself says the competition continues until 30 July. Secondly, the article is woeful. Two uninteresting tables and some utterly uninformative text that all seems to have been written before the event started. This is going to need a lot of work to get onto ITN, despite being on ITNR. Modest Genius talk 10:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    Um, to your first point, this is an "ongiong" nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    It wasn't when I commented upon it. The template has been changed since then. Modest Genius talk 13:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've clarified in the heading that this is an ongoing nom. As 331dot notes, we will presumably see another nomination in a few days time for when the event concludes, per ITNR. But since we don't have the concept of ITNR for Ongoing events, this seemed like it needed clarification. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing the rationale behind posting an ongoing item, when the same story is likely to be a blurb, or will at least be eligible, in a couple of days. Vanamonde (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing per the precedents collected at WP:ITNSPORTS ("Nominations for various multi-day single sport events for the "ongoing" section of ITN have failed, with seemingly only one exception" (the Football World Cup). BencherliteTalk 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    Point of clarification: Is the reason for posting the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup as ongoing and not others the level of interest during the event? That feels right to me, and the place where we can make a clear distinction. Those are big events that are followed very strongly throughout their run.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The Olympics is posted because it is a multi-sport event; its article or related articles are incrementally updated- as well as interest in it. The World Cup is posted(which I've opposed in the past) due to its sheer popularity worldwide. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bencherlite and 331dot. This is not what ongoing is for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as ongoing as per several above. I think we should close this and have a regular nomination when the championship ends. --LukeSurl t c 13:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, but would be a proper ITN for the conclusion of the events. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Enough with this madness. The main page is really lacking a big, unsourced medal table and a very looooooooong list of country flags. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above oppose votes, noting also that championships are already about 3/4 of the way complete. Could be nominated as a regular ITN item once the event is over in a couple days. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 Temple Mount crisisEdit

Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Temple Mount crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Already a discussion in ITN to nominate this as ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two of the three events are not directly linked to the original Temple Mount attack, so calling this a "crisis" seems far too premature and OR. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, seems to be winding down. Perhaps there will be a flare-up on Friday, but unless that gets seriously out of control, I can't see this being a crisis worth posting. Abductive (reasoning) 06:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive's reasoning. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not seeing this story receive enough attention for it to be in the ongoing section at the moment; and it isn't for lack of looking. Vanamonde (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 25Edit


[Closed] Adobe Flash no longer updatedEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Adobe Flash (talk, history)
Blurb: Adobe announces it will cease maintenance of its Adobe Flash Player in 2020.
News source(s): [15] [16]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Mainly nominating this because the current blurbs are so one-dimensional ... Flash is iconic and very well known, but it's been declining for a while, and now it's finally getting killed. Could expand the blurb to link Comparison of HTML5 and Flash too. Banedon (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. Also quite significant since Flash was really noteworthy in usage on the Internet. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Things can change between now and then. And we normally do not mark the "death" of a software product since it is not really dead. (Eg there's a reason why the ransomware attacks were able to exploit XP systems far pass MS's lack of support for them). --MASEM (t) 05:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Microsoft announced Paint was dead, and then changed their mind. Nominate it if it actually happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The article is indeed pretty good, and it would be nice to feature something a bit different. But the actual event isn't until 2020, assuming they don't change their minds or the schedule. Announcing that they intend to do something in three years isn't a major encyclopaedic event - though the actual end of maintaining this important software might be. Unfortunately I don't think there's much of an alternative to saying 'come back in 2020'. Modest Genius talk 09:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. I would probably support posting this..... in 2020. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with above, but I'm guessing by 2020 this will be less relevant. "Old soldiers never die..."GCG (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The internet is going to start changing in response to this. Flash was used all over and this is one turning point. Wikipedia can't reject events than happen over the course of years without having a highlight day in which some bomb explodes or some President is elected. Rich web games and web content is now doomed. So many different well established and popular websites all have their days counted in their current form due to primarily working with Flash and the impossibility to do the same with HTML. 82.154.205.175 (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose now. This is just an announcement that something will happen in 3 years if nobody changes their minds. I might support when support is actually ended though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until 2020 when it actually does stop getting updated, if that actually happens. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - So what, software comes and goes, that's the nature of IT. STSC (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment - STSC As much valid as presidents coming and going, being the nature of presidency. Yet, that never fails the news. It's not unimportant software, think of .swf files having the usage of .jpg, .mp3 and .gif files for example. Yes, they had that much usage across the web at one point and it's now ending. 82.154.205.175 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment if one believes the source then it's hard to see Adobe changing their minds. Microsoft is phasing Flash out on its browsers, Google is doing the same, Apple is supportive of the 2020 timeline as well. Quoting The Verge, "HTML5 standards have been implemented across all modern web browsers, and the need for Flash just isn’t there anymore". Banedon (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the nominator that the current blurbs are a bit dull - ITN/R sport items and two not particularly notable people dying who should be in the RD section - so this would at least be something completely different. I also agree that this announcement is unlikely to be reversed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Barbara SinatraEdit

Article: Barbara Sinatra (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Fourth wife of Frank Sinatra Sherenk1 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Is she really notable in her own right?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    AFD is the place to ask that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    While the article is not particularly extensive, she would likely to pass GNG on her charitable works alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose CN. She's had some celebrity derived from her association with Frank, but distinct in several ways (and since his death as well) noted in RS. There is this thing that happens where obscure RD noms get one support vote (from the reliable TRM) and no other support or oppose, and then they fall off. There are enough editors wandering these parts that abstention on the simple question of quality seems to me like a de facto vote of "obscure." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC) UPDATE - I removed the movie with the CN which is so negligible that RT has zero reviews for it. - GCG - 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "Legacy and portrayals" section needs more citations (the ref at the end of the paragraph verifies only the last sentence), but when that is fixed it will be good to post. A more extensive article would be significantly desirable, but what's there is enough (just). Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Support now sufficiently referenced. Still wouldn't mind more depth though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 13:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

July 24Edit


[Posted] Lahore suicide bombingEdit

Article: July 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing in Lahore, Pakistan left 25 people dead and wounded 53 others.
News source(s): BBCDawn, Dunya News, The Express Tribune

Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths in a notable city. The blast is getting media coverage across Pakistan and many other countries. Passes the so-called BBC test. Amirk94391 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose By my count, this is the tenth attack in Pakistan this year with a double-digit death toll (excluding perps). Tragic, but unfortunately veering towards normal. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GCG. Terrorist attack in a area known for terrorism. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support - the article looks good, and the death toll is significant. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. Quite a number of people died. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Death toll tragically high, enough that we should post even given that the area is prone to violence. Article in decent shape. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support if it's not notable enough, then the article should be redirected. As it stands, it seems perfectly notable and super tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No sign this item is actually "In the news" (beyond the obligatory wire service articles reporting that a bomb went off and X people died). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's a routine bombing in Pakistan, and all the articles cited are boiler plate 3 paragraph "This happened, this many people died, we think it was this islamist group". I don't care about "international importance" but unless I actively search for the story, I don't see it any place. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This wasn't even the deadliest attack of the day. 36 were killed in Kabul. Another 35 in Ghar the day before. These were not even nominated. "If you think those were notable, you can nominate them." Yeah, and then I'm being pointy. We're going to need to work this out sooner rather than later. GCG (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Article meets ITN standards quality-wise and there is consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Sun Zhengcai investigationEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sun Zhengcai (talk, history)
Blurb: Sun Zhengcai, a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China, and the party chief of Chongqing, is placed under investigation.
Alternative blurb: Sun Zhengcai is removed from office as the Communist Party Secretary of Chongqing and placed under investigation
News source(s): The New York Times, Financial Times
Nominator's comments: An "investigation" of a sitting Politburo member has happened only four times in the last 20 years, and is considered an event of extreme significance in the Chinese political scene, because it ends the career of the subject of the investigation. To be clear on precedent, the analogous case of Bo Xilai – also a Politburo member and a Chongqing party chief – in April 2012 was posted on ITN; the investigation into Xu Caihou and Zhou Yongkang (former Politburo members at time of investigation, not incumbents) were also featured on ITN. The timing of the investigation also means it will significantly impact the upcoming 19th Party Congress, an event closely watched by both domestic and external observers. Colipon+(Talk) 02:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Colipon+(Talk) 02:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose one imagines that people across the world are placed under investigation every day. This may be more significant but it appears from the nomination that it's the subsequent ramifications which should be newsworthy, and we're yet to see what they really are. Everything else seems speculative at this point. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The term "investigation" is highly charged and should be considered in its independent context; it is essentially a irreversible indictment in Chinese political parlance - a death knell. There is been no known instance of anyone who was placed under investigation by the party's disciplinary authority and subsequently "cleared", therefore the news is most shocking when the announcement is made, not when the results of the investigation are known. Same argument was made at Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang. Colipon+(Talk) 12:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment To TRM's point, it looks like Bo Xilai was posted after he was expelled, correct? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Bo Xilai was added to ITN the day after he was dismissed as Chongqing party chief. I added an alt-blurb and ask editors reconsider. @Thryduulf:. Colipon+(Talk) 18:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting a mere (even if rare) investigation because he could be cleared. Would support posting his conviction/expulsion. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN practice has long been that conviction is the point at which these sorts of stories are posted. Just because nobody has been cleared before does not mean that it will not happen on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I think one guy did get cleared once. Abductive (reasoning) 06:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not seeing this in google/bing news feeds, but the fascist regime of the CPC isn't exactly known for rule of law in a country where billionaires disappear. Being "investigated" is as good as found guilty over there, the rest is a formality. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Most outsiders don't seem to understand the significance of this event. Politburo members are usually untouchable in communist China; if one of them is being investigated by the state, it's certainly significant news in itself regardless what the outcome is. STSC (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Indeed, systemic bias at its best here. Colipon+(Talk) 13:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • We're still talking only an investigation. We're well aware that likely means the end of the career, but we presume innocence to start, and so only at the end of the investigation does it make sense to post. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I've already stated that I would support posting the end game of this investigation, even if that outcome is virtually certain at this point. We haven't (rightfully) posted investigations into Russian interference or hacking; I don't support posting this mere investigation either. No bias issue for me at all. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • The issue is who is being investigated here, the outcome is secondary. This event significantly shows that the anti-corruption campaign in China is targetting the "big tigers" as quoted in Chinese press. I think it's much more significant than the "Women's Cricket World Cup", just 8 teams from British Commonwealth countries playing a minority sport (women's cricket), which was quickly posted on ITN. STSC (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
        • What you consider significant is not necessarily what others consider significant; hence the need for discussion like this before posting. India, a participant in the Cricket World Cup, has 1/7 of the humans on this planet. Clearly cricket is notable to many- and has now been added to the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Indeed, second STSC's comment. It is laughable that Women's Cricket World Cup, an event of (relative) little consequence even in the countries involved, receives ITN coverage but not Sun Zhengcai. To be clear, it is not just the 'investigation' that is the bombshell here - it is the fact that Sun was abruptly removed from office. It totally, suddenly, and irreversibly changes the Chinese political landscape (second most consequential only to the United States). Colipon+(Talk) 15:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
        • We don't post removals from offices below head of state in the US either. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yawn, "India is a big country so cricket is news", that argument is as tired as it is ineffective. Anyway, there will be no "end" to this investigation. Sun will just quietly go away. That's how they do over there. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where I'm coming down on this, but the opposition seems to be pulling the "Evolution is just a theory" card. You may choose to reject the factual basis of Colipon's characterization (essentially that Sun has already been convicted) or you may accept it but still dispute the worthiness, but to say "we post convictions not accusations" is side-stepping the issue. GCG (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @GreatCaesarsGhost: Why do you say that? The news is that he has been placed under investigation, not that he has been convicted, so why is it sidestepping the issue to point out that we don't post these sorts of stories until conviction? Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Because the weight of various stages of a criminal/political proceeding are not the same in various countries. The proper course for ITN voters is to weigh the prima facie case of the nomination, in this case that a) this act is "a death knell" (to quote Colipon), b) it is extraordinarily rare, & c) due to the role of the office in the country and country in the world, it is significant. To say we don't post indictments ignores the entire case of the nom, but specifically the first point that this is not a indictment in the common parlance. I'm going to register myself as weak support, because in each case a) Yep, all signs point to the criminal justice system in China being a formality to execute the wishes of the CPC, b) seems true, but c) I don't understand the internal politics enough to know if the change from this guy to his replacement matters at all. GCG (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
      • The main point remains - the Chinese internet is largely walled off from the global internet; assuming Chinese internet users were proportionally represented on the English Wikipedia - or even Wikipedia more generally, it would be a 'no brainer' to post this story - because the significance is so obvious to those familiar with the matter - it is a bombshell of immense proportions - and has happened exactly three times since 1990 (Chen Xitong, Chen Liangyu, Bo Xilai.) That the subject matter needs to be justified at all seems to reflect overall systemic bias. In response to @GreatCaesarsGhost:, Sun's dismissal changes everything about the upcoming 19th Party Congress. It was anticipated that Sun would be a successor candidate to Xi Jinping; that the party was to remove such a high profile figure speaks to a total revamping of the 'rules of the game' and irreversibly re-shapes the political landscape. It is of course difficult for those who live in an electoral democracy, unaccustomed to the machinations of a one-party state, to appreciate the significance of this, so I don't hold it against the editors personally for opposing such a nomination. But for the sake of balance and in light of the arguments made, I urge the final adjudicating admin to weigh the arguments on their merits and consider the issue of systemic bias seriously. For what it's worth, at the Chinese wikipedia, the item is #1 on its ITN feature. Colipon+(Talk) 04:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colipon, maybe the blurb could also include the 'Anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jinping'. STSC (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for a conviction. However much we might think it's inevitable, that is the standard we have always applied (see the recent item on Lula's conviction in Brazil). If a major Politburo member is convicted and removed from office that would probably be notable enough for ITN, but merely announcing an investigation is not. 'Innocent until proven guilty' might not have much currency in China, but it does at ITN (and is enshrined in Wikpedia policy at WP:BLPCRIME). Modest Genius talk 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The way these Chinese "investigations" work, at least as reported in state media, is that you don't get a formal investigation opened (with a public announcement, no less) until they already have decided that you are guilty of at least some violation. Given such an announcement, the chance Sun will escape unscathed is basically zero, and that's not mentioning that Chinese state media for the past few days are filled with stories announcing local officials' support for placing Sun under "investigation", and there's no way in hell they'll back out now. I don't have much to add to Colipon's description of the significance of this event. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The president of the USA doesn't get an impeachment hearing until the senators are convinced he's guilty of at least some of what he's accused of. We still don't post until he's either impeached or not. In this case if it's been decided already that he's guilty then they will announce the guilt at some point. That's when we'll post (assuming the article is of sufficient quality at that time). Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
      • That analogy is so completely inapt that I'm at a loss for words. To start with, the House of Representative impeaches; the Senate tries the impeachment. If you are actually claiming that the Senate has ever refused to try articles of impeachment passed by the House due to insufficiency of evidence, please provide a reference, otherwise you are just making things up. The way the Chinese system works, we are way past the point of no return. The chance he'll be cleared is zero; the chance that he'll avoid criminal prosecution is minuscule. It's like insisting on not posting about someone's death until the official autopsy report is released months later. T. Canens (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I think what Thryduulf is saying is that the House won't vote to impeach unless they are reasonably sure that the Senate will vote to convict. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Really? You honestly think the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton "reasonably sure" that at least 12 Democratic senators would vote to convict him? Regardless, the analogy is still utterly inapt; in the CCP system at issue here, the "investigating" and the "convicting" are essentially by the same body, and they don't publicly announce a formal investigation until they already found that the subject is guilty of some "violations of discipline". T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Balangiga bellsEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 11:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Balangiga bells (talk, history)
Blurb: Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte asks the United States to return the Balangiga bells taken during the Philippine–American War.
News source(s): The Washington Post, United Press International
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Anyone can call for anything; unless this develops into a major diplomatic incident (which seems unlikely as that is not a new position) this is just a platitude.331dot (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose more suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - It highlights the love-hate relationship between the Philippines and U.S. - STSC (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can see this ITN if the US returns them, but asking again for their return isn't sufficient. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - When it actually happens, then we raise in ITN Sherenk1 (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Greece has been asking for the Elgin Marbles back for decades but they are still in London about 200 years after they were taken. AFAICT from the linked sources, the US hasn't even responded to the request let alone agreed to it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 23Edit


[Posted] RD: Flo SteinbergEdit

Article: Flo Steinberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Daily News

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Comic publisher. Article looks OK. LukeSurl t c 11:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose several statements without reference in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Which ones? Could you add {{cn}} where you think referencing is needed. --LukeSurl t c 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • One of those statements has been removed, the other referenced. --LukeSurl t c 13:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I see one CN but it seems from context that it was from the prior cited interview. Would certainly be nice to note a woman in a man's field, though I know that's not the point. On balance, I think the article is well-cited. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 11:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John KundlaEdit

Article: John Kundla (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [17]

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 5-time NBA Champion GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support Minneapolis Lakers section has an unreferenced paragraph. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
got that one, don't see any other concerns. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Does his head coaching record need sourcing? Just a question.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I would think so. Added citations for the NBA & NBL, college is cited already. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bob DeMossEdit

Article: Bob DeMoss (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox 59, Purdue Sports

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: High-profile college football player and coach with legendary career at Perdue University. Article well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support for a "legendary career", it's very brief, but adequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: I have expanded the career section using sources. If more must be expanded to demonstrate his "legendary" career, I am waiting for more obits to be published to have a variety of sources throughout the article. I think for now it should be expanded well enough using the resources I had. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Appears to be well referenced. Is "Perdue" a misspelling or an earlier name of the school? It successfully redirects, FWIW. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Israeli Embassy attack in AmmanEdit

Article: 2017 attack on the Israeli Embassy in Amman (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting at the Israeli embassy in Amman, Jordan, leaves two Jordanian and an Israeli wounded.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Attacks on embassies is not common in Jordan. Article still needs to be updated as possible connection with recent tensions at Jerusalem Sherenk1 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose, fallout from events at the Temple Mount/al-Aqsa Mosque which were not posted. Does not deserve an article, let alone being on the Front Page. Abductive (reasoning) 05:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Abductive notes, we didn't get close to posting the Temple Mount issue, so this one is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's also not a shooting: "Israel's foreign ministry said a Jordanian attacked a security guard with a screwdriver in a residential building used by the embassy." The security guard may have fired back in self-defense, but that's it. At best, this is a domestic crime and shouldn't even be an article. --MASEM (t) 06:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. Vanamonde (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do reconsider as it is being reported as "one of the most serious incidents between the two countries since they signed a peace treaty in 1994" and is leading to a diplomatic crisis. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. This could be an issue if it degenerates further (and also if it is accurate that embassy staff are not being permitted to leave, essentially being held as hostages) but I don't feel it is yet. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although perhaps not the embassy attack, but I think that something needs to be posted regarding the Israeli-Palestinian tensions. The situation there has escalated considerably since the 2017 Temple Mount shooting 10 days ago, and what is happening there now definitely does not look like par for the course. There was the initial shooting, then Israel installed metal detectors at the Temple Mount; the muslims in protest started boycotting the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the 3-d holiest site in Islam; the Palestinian authority suspended all cooperation with Israel, and there have been several deadly stabbing attacks, including the embassy one. That's far from business as usual, even for that part of the world. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Open ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2017 Open Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Jordan Spieth wins the Open Championship.
News source(s): BBC

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Stormy clouds (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support there's even a little summary of each round in there, bonus. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is a rather off-putting data dump in places (especially the 'field' section), but the prose summaries of each round meet our update requirements and this is on ITNR. Looks good to go, marking ready. Modest Genius talk 11:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the "Media" section is lacking sources. I don't think it's controversial and it should be easy to source but I'm not in a position to look myself at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Trivial nit pick: please consider unbolding the full stop after "Open Championship" in the live template. 24.17.207.180 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Done, but better reported at WP:ERRORS, thanks. Stephen 03:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Women's Cricket World CupEdit

Article: 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Women's Cricket World Cup concludes with England defeating India in the final.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article (and associated articles) is now fully updated. Anirudh tope (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - I noted that ITNR only covers the men's cup, Cricket World Cup. Should we assume that also implies the women's cup, to avoid the gender systematic bias? --MASEM (t) 12:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'd say we should assume so, or even ignore ITNR and post this anyway; we have enough men-only sporting events, as it is. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'm just thinking we should make that explicit at ITNR, just wanted to make sure. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    I would say no seeing as the ITN/r for football specifically states Women's World Cup. AIRcorn (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, wait for the article to come up to scratch after the final is over. I've never been a fan of this type of wording, though. Why can we not go with "Country X defeats Country Y in the final of the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup", which seems more natural? Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    Agree we don't need the "In cricket", since the event's official title has it. It's not like, say, Daytona 500 that's its not clear its a car racing event, so we need that "In car racing" prefix. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: We deliberately avoid that phrasing, because of the WP:ENGVAR issue on teams being plural or singular. British English uses 'defeat' whilst American English uses 'defeats' in that situation; both varieties think the other is ungrammatical and complain at WP:ERRORS. To avoid argument ITN has adopted a specific phrasing that all varieties of English agree makes sense. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance (you beat me to nominating this 😜!). I don't think the current ITN/R item covers this. Obviously we need to wait until the match is over and the article is updated adequately. --LukeSurl t c 13:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Match summary seems more than adequate to post. --LukeSurl t c 19:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Despite of the name "World Cup", in reality it's simply not a significant event globally. STSC (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • India, Pakistan, West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and England is pretty global. AIRcorn (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Just 8 teams from British Commonwealth countries playing a minority sport (women's cricket)... it's hardly "globally significant". STSC (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, wait for quality update. I don't think the current ITN/R covers this, nor do I think it should as they are separate events held at separate times and while it is significant enough for ITN this is not always the case when men and women compete in separate events at separate times (e.g. the Women's Rugby League World Cup is nowhere near as prominent as the men's equivalent) and so I do not want this to set a precedent for those events. I would support adding the Women's Cricket World Cup to INTR though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Full support now, the match is over and the update is good. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Significant global event. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We don't post many women sports events. The world cup is the pinnacle of woman's cricket and the sport is growing in popularity.[18] Update is good. AIRcorn (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The Women's World Cup is a significant event and should be added to ITN/R. Article is good enough as well Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and I tweaked the blurb for WP:ENGVAR. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Not ITN/R but this is the only women's cricket event that is likely to have a chance of posting and we should go for it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance and article quality. Is that pipe needed in first link of blurb? JennyOz (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per above comments - Sherenk1 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support plus tweaked the blurb (we don't add years in there), this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Taking the unusual step of posting something I also voted for because this has been ready for a while, and has received overwhelming support here. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Tour de FranceEdit

Article: 2017 Tour de France (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cycling, Chris Froome wins the Tour de France
Alternative blurb: ​In cycling, Chris Froome wins the Tour de France for the fourth time
Alternative blurb II: ​In cycling, (insert name of winner) wins the Tour de France.
News source(s): BBC

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: I know it hasn't finished, but the last stage is largely ceremonial. In the unlikely event Froome fails to finish then we'll have to go with altblurb2. Article looks in good shape too so should be ok to post on completion of the stage. yorkshiresky (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Articles are in great shape, ITN/R, and pending the conclusion of the race/update, of course. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The articles look great and ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The race article is fine. Also I see Froome's article is in good shape for front-page posting so this could be highlighted. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article is ready for posting. --LukeSurl t c 19:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. Now, that is a well-written sport article, good job! --Tone 20:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RD: Lau Wong-fatEdit

Article: Lau Wong-fat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): South China Morning Post Hong Kong’s ‘King of New Territories’ Lau Wong-fat dies at age 80; Hong Kong Free Press ‘King of New Territories’ Lau Wong-fat dies at 80; RTHK Rural leader Lau Wong-fat dies aged 80; Apple Daily 「新界王」劉皇發逝世 享年80歲; Oriental Daily News 鄉議局前主席劉皇發逝世 享年80歲

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: High-profile figure in Hong Kong, arguably the most significant indigenous Hongkonger prior to his death. feminist 10:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Needs more references, there are a good many sentences and several whole paragraphs that are uncited. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - An influential leader for the indigenous community in rural Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • That's irrelevant to RD, all that matters is article quality. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I shall put my support on hold. STSC (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I understand he basically had a personally reserved seat on the Legislative Council. Given his importance I think he merits a mention in RD. --Varavour (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose still unreferenced claims. Notability is not in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

July 22Edit


[Posted] RD: Jim VanceEdit

Article: Jim Vance (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A bit of a local story, but a pioneer for black journalists and a remarkable life. Article seems pretty good as is. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support mostly okay, a couple of unreferenced claims though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and marking "ready", citations have been added. BencherliteTalk 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale Sorry, folks. Older than the last currently on the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Strike that. Dates mixed up somewhere, this can displace Stubbs for a couple of hours until Yunupingu is posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: StubbsEdit

Article: Stubbs (cat) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [19]

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: I think it's been a while since we had an animal on RD, so here's the Alaskan cat mayor. Article doesn't look bad. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support As animals are RD eligible the only factor to consider is article quality and it looks ok to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per IAR. For one, while there is no hard rule that a death must be widely reported, common sense points to the irrelevance in that there is no wide coverage of this death. Secondly, if (and that's a strong if) the story of a cat being elected mayor warrants an encyclopedia article, the election should be target and not the cat (who did nothing). I know we all think we're being too cute by half with this "technically ITNRD is for all living creatures" BS, but this is shameful. That exception is for the likes of American Pharoah or General Sherman. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • If you think the subject should not have an article, nominate it at WP:AFD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I could see a credible argument for deletion based on WP:1E and INDISCRIMINATE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Now that I see that there never was an election and this is all just a stupid hoax, yeah, AfD seems like a good idea. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The article is in good enough shape, and consensus is that individual animals with their own article are eligible for RD. However there is a requirement that the death be in the news and I'm only seeing it in one, local source so I'm not certain this is met. I'll support if it is getting wider coverage than just Alaska though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Support. Article is in good shape and the news coverage has increased since my previous comment. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only one significant news story and that is local. Per WP:IAR. This is "In the News" not a promotional forum for silly trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose amended. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note This article is currently at AfD and therefore not eligible for posting on the main page. I would suggest an uninvolved editor close this nomination w/o prejudice to re-opening if the AfD is closed early as a Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • AFD has been closed as SNOW keep. Also, CNN and The guardian have published obits which should alleviate earlier concerns. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Some people just want to watch the world burn. I've had too much to say about this damn cat, but let this be the last: WP has a lot of rules, enough that you can make any case you want by pushing one and ignoring the rest. But there is a clear sentiment that common sense should prevail. That you may not just troll the entire community on a technicality, because A-HA!!! WP:IAR!!! It'll be fun to see which living organism with actual accomplishments is pushed to make room for your joke. Looks like this guy. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Bennington is the most recent listing, and there are other RDs that are set to ready and will probably be posted before this potentially reaches the main page, so no, it probably won't be him.Nohomersryan (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above points. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article is in decent condition, and that's what we're assessing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and the rules be damned.--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not in the news. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; that wasn't offered before. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the questions about the notability of the article remain in question enough that the DC aspect should not apply here. (Arguably if the bulk of the article is sourced to obits, that fails BLP too). --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The bulk of the article isn't sourced to obituaries and it has just been kept at AfD so I don't think that notability can be said to be in question. 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't see how the notability is still in question. It's mostly just the same few people who wanted it gone beating that drum. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Something feels wrong with how this article developed, though I have to admit before the cat's death, it did have some notability (the obits pushed it over, but we generally avoid notability of people that are only notable for their deaths). To that end, I'm changing my !vote to neutral. I recognize the RFC, this fits, there's no technical reason not to post, but with a spat of RDs of actual people, displacing one for a cat seems wrong. And maybe that's the issue to address in talk. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment What's the point of having animals in RD if it's just going to be ignored every time? We went through the same thing with Pedals the bear.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Good question. Consensus was clearly in favour of individual animals with standalone articles being eligible for RD on the same terms as humans (i.e. subject to article quality alone) - and it's even mentioned in the nomination template. There seems to be a lot of IDONTLIKEIT around this cat for some reason. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Maybe we should re-visit that decision, start a new RFC on recently deceased notable animals/plants etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I would also agree with that. It seems like a game of chance if you're going to nominate an animal, and it probably shouldn't be.Nohomersryan (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted - discussions about changing the rules can be started elsewhere if desired, but on the present approach there is now no reason not to post this. BencherliteTalk 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: John HeardEdit

Article: John Heard (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article needs some work, is start-class. I've listed this under July 22, but sources seem to be in dispute over his date of death. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Significantly more references needed. There is only one citation for the whole acting career section for example, and that just sources a lengthy quote. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorely under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] National Council of the JudiciaryEdit

Laws were vetoed, so nothing has changed. BencherliteTalk 11:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: National Council of the Judiciary (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The upper chamber of the Polish parliament approves controversial legislation to restructure the National Council of the Judiciary.
News source(s): [20] [21]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The European Union has suggested it may suspend Poland's voting rights in the European Commission should the legislation pass. This would mark an historic, first-time use of the EU's Article 7 powers. Chetsford (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a lot of "ifs" here, the issue would be if the EU evokes Article 7 (suspending Poland's vote in the EU). Passing this does not assure that Article 7 will necessarily be enacted. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the EU does invoke Article 7 then that's definitely ITN-worthy, but let's wait until it happens, if it does. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until Article 7 is invoked, which would merit posting(suspension of a nation's vote in a major international organization). This is just one step. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - isn't this a bit bigger than just the Council of the Judiciary? If I'm understanding this correctly, the controversial law includes sacking the entire supreme court.[22] Rami R 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Rami R there are actually three separate bills. The article on the National Council of the Judiciary, which I wrote and to which my nomination links, only mentions the first of them (which would restructure the Council). The Supreme Court measure is in a different bill. TIME has the essential nature of the legislation correct, but they've played a bit fast and loose with the details and seem to have reimagined several distinct bills as a single piece of legislation (sort-of how authors sometimes create composite characters out of real people, I suppose). Chetsford (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
If all these laws are being advanced, I believe they are collectively significant enough for ITN. Chetsford, would expanding Judiciary of Poland to include these developments be feasible? Rami R 07:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is sufficient to post even if the EU doesn't invoke Article 7. Nationally it's hardly smaller than the similar crises in Venezuela, and we posted blurbs on that. It has international repercussions as well. Possibly wait until the President signs it, but not until (if) Article 7 is invoked. Banedon (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Masem clearly put it, too many "ifs" and Black Kite's comment is correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment And they were vetoed anyway. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 21Edit


[Closed] India train food declared to be unfit for human consumptionEdit

Strong consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Indian Railways (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India train food declared to be unfit for human consumption
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This appears to be something everyone knew and it was just a long time coming for the Indian gov't to regulate like this. It is not the case of a sudden outbreak of some contamination or the like. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Opppose overblown silly-season news, horrible target article, blurb is plagiarised headlinese. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this general judgement not related to a specific incident(like a mass food poisoning or illness outbreak). 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BIAS. — fortunavelut luna 09:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The user may be saying that this should be posted to address systemic bias, but that doesn't override the need to update the article and better explain why this should be posted on its merits. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the target article has not been edited since the 17th and does not mention this recent issue. --LukeSurl t c 09:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most of "food" served up on the British trains isn't much better. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2017 Aegean Sea EarthquakeEdit

Happily this doesn't appear to have been as bad as it might have been. In any event the nomination doesn't look like it's going anywhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Aegean Sea earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 6.7 magnitude earthquake strikes Greece and Turkey
Alternative blurb: ​At least 2 killed and more than 200 injured due to an earthquake striking Greece and Turkey
News source(s): [23] [24] [25]

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Ongoing event, but should be put ITN ASAP for relevance. User:Ravivyas16 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until it can be determined if there are large scale casualties and/or damage. Nothing needs to be posted ASAP; only when it's ready to be. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. As it stands 2 killed, 200 injured and no significant damage reported this is nowhere near significant enough to post. If things significantly change from that it might merit ITN, but not yet. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 20Edit


[Posted] RD: John McCluskeyEdit

Article: John McCluskey, Baron McCluskey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, The Scotsman, The Herald, The Times

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A 'Giant of Scots law'. He was a former Court of Session and High Court judge and Labour Peer. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I have added further references to the article and I think the issues that you had picked up on have now been addressed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I now Support this.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article now appears to be in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Looks well referenced. Is there a threshold of "votes" we're looking for? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted despite being one of the !voters as it's been ready for over a day. @GreaCasesarsGhost: there is no formal threshold. My personal standard is comments from at least 2 people other than the nominator and at least one support after any problems are noted fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Majorana fermionEdit

Article: Majorana fermion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Majorana-like state in a quantum semiconductor-superconductor interface is found
News source(s): [26] [27]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article currently not updated + tagged as technical. Banedon (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Would suggest to specify in the blurb to give the reader a better idea, like one the title of the first source: Stanford theorists finds evidence for the Majorana fermion. Significant scientific discovery, could be compared to the gravitational waves and only needs updating. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Stanford didn't do the work. You fell for the hype. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. You can't source this to a press release, even a press release put out by the World's Best University, Stanford, may all other universities bow down to its greatness. Abductive (reasoning) 03:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
... so source it to something else? Really, I don't think it should be compulsory for the nomination to give the best sources. You can fill in the blanks yourself. In the same way a scientific paper never explicitly tells you where the relevant sentences are in the reference, they just give you enough information to identify the source and leave the rest to you. [28] [29] [30] [31] found all that in under a minute. Banedon (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It is incumbent upon the nominator to update the article, which you have not done. Telling me to do it is asinine. And the reason I lay into the press release is that that piece of garbage is taking credit for the discovery done by researchers at other universities. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That is factually wrong. There is no requirement that the nominator has to update the article (there's a reason the "nominator" and "updater" are separate fields) That said, if someone says "this should be ITN" and repeatedly argue that point, and do nothing to help the article, that's poor behavior. It's also on the nominator to show reasonably strong sourcing to support the ITNC if the article is not properly updated. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so let's pretend that we can all nominate articles that haven't been updated, because they will magically get updated. The reason the "updater" is a separate field is so that the updater can get credit, not so that users can nominate articles that haven't been updated. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The only place I used the Stanford press release is in this nomination. Are you criticizing me for not updating the article because I used the Stanford press release in this nomination? That doesn't even make sense to me. Also, when you're done updating WP:ITN to specify that nominators must update the article, let me know. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm criticizing you for asking us to believe a load of malarky put out by an overeager, attention-hogging PR operation run out of Stanford. Abductive (reasoning) 15:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm waiting for you to submit a rebuttal to Science arguing that the original article should not have passed peer review. If you don't like the Stanford PR release, look up another source. I did not "ask" you to believe the PR release, but if you're going to say "it's a Stanford PR release, therefore it is fake news", I'd call you unscientific. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm still split on my opinion for this, but it is also to be published today in Science, so it is the result of a peer-reviewed paper. I would suggest, following Jamez's comment, the statement needs to be "dumbed down" to explain what this is to the layperson. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is not updated. Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Blurb is too technical and needs to change. However the whole article needs a re-write to go on the front page. I cant understand a word its talking about even in the opener. I had to read the linked pages and then still didn't understand what it is only the odd word here and there made any sense. It requires a level of knowledge far in excess of what you can expect the average reader to have in order to understand what its talking about. As such until a layman's explanation is adder explaining what it is and why we should care its a bad idea to post this. 85.159.132.48 (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted the discovery back in 2014 Brandmeistertalk 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, this was why I was persisting in asking that the article be updated; to expose the fact that the update would look suspiciously similar to the last couple of updates. Abductive (reasoning) 15:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a conflict of interest here so won't !vote. However, I will point out that this is not the discovery of a Majorana fermion, but a Majorana-like state in a quantum semiconductor-superconductor interface (i.e. a form of quasiparticle). That's interesting but far from being a discovery of a particle, and related quasiparticles have been seen before. See the actual paper. Modest Genius talk 10:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Any comment on the importance of this recent in the field? Would help someone who isn't familiar with the topic assess its notability, even if you have a COI. Best, SpencerT♦C 19:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • This is what I get after looking through the recent news and comparing it to the 2014 one ([32] link, as given by Brandmeister in the original nomination). What's new this time is that the Majorana fermions are mobile ("chiral"). The signal for non-mobile Majorana fermions have more confounding factors so this presents a cleaner detection of the Majorana fermions. If chiral Majorana fermions are significant in other ways, I didn't see anything about that (perhaps Modest Genius can explain?). In terms of possible applications the only one given is to stabilize quantum computers, which the researchers concede is "far in the future". Banedon (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that the latest Majorana fermion finding is of individual moving chiral quasiparticles. Whether these three adjectives; "individual", "moving", and "chiral" (but still "quasi") are worth posting is debatable. I strongly object to mentioning Stanford in the blurb, as the experiment was conducted elsewhere and the profs are from three different universities. Abductive (reasoning) 15:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jadwiga SzubartowiczEdit

Closed pending the outcome of the AfD. If the AfD is withrdrawn or closed as keep before this news is stale then the nomination may be reopened by any editor. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jadwiga Szubartowicz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kurier Lubelski

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Poland's oldest woman. No sources in English but I don't think that's a requirement. Article was a recent DYK Harambe Walks (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article is brief but referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have doubts about the notability of the subject and am seriously considering sending it to AfD. See the discussion I just opened on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article currently nominated for deletion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should close this per point 1 of WP:ITNRD - it's not eligible while under AFD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Chester BenningtonEdit

Article: Chester Bennington (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.tmz.com/2017/07/20/linkin-park-singer-chester-bennington-dead-commits-suicide/

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable musician and singer who died today (Linkin Park and Dead by Sunrise). Should be in the recent deaths section at least. PootisHeavy (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Whoa. Support. This came totally out of left field. Despite the death being unexpected, though, can't make it a blurb since he was neither a Mandela nor a Thatcher.--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The suicide of the frontman of a major rock band could be blurb-worthy in my opinion. Worthy of a discussion at least. Quality-wise the article seems to be well-referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is not up to main page standards. It's close, but some text is unreferenced or underreferenced. The following sections need serious work in this regard: "Dead by Sunrise", "Stone Temple Pilots", first short paragraph of "Other works". If that were fixed, it'd be main page ready. --Jayron32 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    Support All problems have been addressed. RD is sufficient here. --Jayron32 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - Once the referencing issues in the music career section are addressed, this will be ready for RD Spiderone 19:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support for RD Overall the article is not in bad shape. I've added a few CN tags but this should not be a major project. Once properly referenced we should be good to go. FTR I oppose a blurb. However sad this is this guy doesn't rate that level of attention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only (with remaining article improvements) The RD is obvious, the article just needs a few CN tags fixed away. I don't think a blurb is appropriate as while an apparent suicide by someone still at the prime of their career (ala Robin Williams or even Prince), this is not a household name worldwide (much less in WEstern cultures). --MASEM (t) 19:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for blurb - obviously. World famous artist, global headlines, early and tragic death. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:BC43:B2E7:865E:F5E7 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only when article is of sufficient quality and oppose blurb. Prominence of the singer not high enough to warrant bigger coverage. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD with image like you did for Chris Cornell. 42.109.194.74 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only. Not a world transforming figure. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support RD only no way you can consider this individual for a blurb. Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Quite honestly, under the old criteria, not sure if he'd pass the notability bar.--WaltCip (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be instructive for us to go back to the old RD method for a month and see how many endless arguments over these kind of nominations we'd see....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Bennington would have passed the old criteria quite easily ("key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically"). Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for RD article seems ok. Fronted a ground-breaking band. A sad loss. Martinevans123 (talk)
  • Support blurb, somewhat surprising death that has shocked the music world. Not trying to make a OSE-esque argument, but I'd consider this as big or bigger deal than Mirzakhani's death. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb lacks the required prominence and importance for a blurb. His death merited only a short mention on the main BBC TV news tonight, late into the programme, and behind a lengthier piece about OJ Simpson getting parole. BencherliteTalk 21:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Per Bencherlite. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD only. Clear consensus against a blurb. Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD with image - b/c an unexpected death of a prominent figure in his/her field, but not a transformational figure, imo, so I would oppose blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD with image - he had global outreach as a prominent musician. starship.paint ~ KO 01:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Nowhere near the world-changing influence we should require for a blurb. RD is fine. Image choice depends whether we have any better ones for current blurbs. Modest Genius talk 10:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Nowhere near the level of importance to music as David Bowie or Prince. Oppose image unless there are no blurbs and no more recent RD entries that have suitable images. The ITN image should always be related to the most recent blurb for which a suitable image is available, or if and only if no blurb has a suitable image then the most recent RD to have a suitable image should be illustrated. I oppose all exceptions to this ordering. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] HIV/AIDSEdit

Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: HIV/AIDS (talk, history)
Blurb: UNAIDS finds that 1 million people died of AIDS in 2016, down from 1.2 million in 2015
News source(s): Search your favourite search engine for the title "Amid turning tide, AIDS claimed 1 million lives in 2016: UN". Example: [33]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Debatable whether or not to use "According to a UNAIDS report ..." in the blurb or to leave out attribution entirely "1 million people died ..." Banedon (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the report clearly shows the trend has been downward for many years now. This is good news but more DYK than ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. While a mere report, it does seem to be hitting news outlets and the fact that this involves a well known disease which gets much attention and funding leads me to come down on the support side. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest leaving the attribution, otherwise it just seems like a random opinion. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think an ITN blurb needs to reflect the addition of at least a new paragraph of information, rather than simply a change in some numbers - for me this helps distinguish big events from incremental changes. At present Banedon's updates are in the latter category (and even those have presently been reverted due to reference-breaking technical issues in the article). --LukeSurl t c 10:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we featured the death tolls for major diseases every year in ITN, it would be a constant stream of them. Whilst the fall is welcome, this report is not an event of major encyclopaedic interest. Modest Genius talk 10:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not convinced Yes treatment for HIV/AIDS has become way better over the years. The price is also coming down. So not unsurprising that deaths have dropped. HIV/AIDS is now a chronic disease. The fact that rates are likely going to rise because the US is pulling back from supporting aid for these medications in the developing world is likely more newsworthy IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not the place for your bizarrely off-topic anti-American soapboxing. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Modest. Not surprising. Sca (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a good statistical trend, not a newsworthy breakthrough. μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As others note, a good trend but not an eridcated virus yet. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Indian presidential election, 2017Edit

Article: Indian presidential election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Ram Nath Kovind has been elected as the 14th president of India
Alternative blurb: Ram Nath Kovind is elected as President of India
News source(s): India Today

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Results out today, we can edit blurb after we get to know the result. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Not sure if I can vote because I'm the updater, but the article is well sourced at this pre-results stage and I will work on the article when the results become known. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem with you giving your views on something you updated. Many people do the reverse(give their views then update). 331dot (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Article doesn't adequately explain the system to an uninitiated reader. "As of 2017, the electoral college comprises 776 MPs and 4,120 MLAs. The total strength of Electoral college is 1,098,882 votes." is confusing to me. --LukeSurl t c 07:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've fixed this to my satisfaction now. --LukeSurl t c 11:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As an event listed on WP:ITNR, there's no need for support/oppose votes. However, I agree that this isn't ready for posting yet. The article has a bare minimum of prose, and leaves the non-expert reader scratching their head. I certainly struggled to follow it and remain rather mystified. Surely the election of such an important office deserves more than 250 words of explanation? Modest Genius talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    Also I've added a simpler altblurb. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The article will need a table of the actual results now that they've been announced. --LukeSurl t c 11:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a table with the "headline" results. --LukeSurl t c 12:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is now adequate for posting. --LukeSurl t c 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Certainly much improved. Before supporting I would still like to see some discussion on the selection of candidates, their campaign positions, and the inline tags addressed. Modest Genius talk 15:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The inline tags are now dealt with. --LukeSurl t c 16:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Because this was an indirect election by already-elected people, and the ruling coalition was always going to get their candidate elected there wasn't really a campaign with positions to discuss. --LukeSurl t c 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood, but they surely said *something* about why they wanted to become president, if only while seeking the nomination from their parties. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. An important event that has enough information to be posted on ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.122.133 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Full Support: The results has been declared by now and Mr. Ram Nath Kovind won the election with 65% of votes. I think now, its the time to be posted in ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.58.91.110 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support Minimally sufficient in depth. It would be nice if the election, results, and reactions had more context and depth, but it's probably enough. If the article were expanded some in those areas, I would shed all reservations. --Jayron32 17:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The article looks fine. India is a huge country both in terms of landmass and population.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficiently referenced and expanded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we replace the image of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva with one of Ram Nath Kovind to convey with the latest update. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Done This may take a few minutes before the update appears. I've noticed ITN is not always super fast in reflecting the latest update on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You just have to purge the main page. It take 2 seconds to do manually. --Jayron32 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I do that routinely. For whatever reason my updates still seem to take a few minutes to show up on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] John McCainEdit

No point in keeping this open, it's fairly clear that a diagnosis of an illness in pretty much any living person is not going to reach consensus for posting. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: John McCain (talk, history)
Blurb: United States Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with glioblastoma—a very aggressive brain cancer.
News source(s): Sen. John McCain has brain cancer, aggressive tumor surgically removed

Article updated
Nominator's comments: McCain is known worldwide and "John McCain" is a well-written article. NightD 06:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Sad for his family but this is not significant at all on a global scale. If/when he dies, we'll post an RD.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tragic, but not globally significant. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the death of a parliamentarian (who wasn't head of govt or head of state) from natural causes would rarely, if ever, be a blurb. Even less likely for such diagnoses. --LukeSurl t c 06:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
He wasn't just a Senator, he was the guy Obama beat to become President. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So losing a Presidential election is a ticket to having one's medical diagnoses posted to ITN? Would that be the case worldwide? 331dot (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I'm thinking of a parallel universe where ITN emphasized article quality, with the only other requirement being if the event is covered in the news. We would totally be posting this then. Banedon (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So you actually support this, then? I just want the real answer. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I opposed it. If I support, it'll be highlighted as such. Banedon (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting a medical diagnosis of a notable person(while sad); if we posted this, we couldn't say no to every other one, turning ITN into a medical news ticker. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 19Edit


[Posted] Blaoui HouariEdit

Article: Blaoui Houari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Décès de Blaoui Houari, un géant de la musique algérienne". La Dépêche du Midi. July 19, 2017. Retrieved July 19, 2017.; Hamidouche, Mustapha (July 19, 2017). "Décès de Blaoui El Houari, une légende de la chanson oranaise". L'Humanité. Retrieved July 19, 2017.; "Algérie : décès du chanteur Blaoui El Houari, icône de la chanson oranaise". Jeune Afrique. July 19, 2017. Retrieved July 19, 2017.

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A bit short, but a start. I created the article today. His obituaries describe him as a "legend", "giant" and "icon" of Algerian music. Zigzig20s (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Article well sourced and I do believe (can be wrong) that size of the article does not matter as long as it covers the basic notability of the subject. I believe that the article did cover it well, though a little expanding wouldn't hurt. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, a bit short, but finely sourced. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too short and bare-bones. 1779Days (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weakest support barely above stub but on a relatively niche subject so it would be unforunate to penalise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It is short but covers the basics adequately enough and I see no referencing issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

July 18Edit


[Posted] RD: Red WestEdit

Article: Red West (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today, Hollywood Reporter

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Best friend to Elvis Presley, a well known stuntman with his works including Road House, and article is well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks solid. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I've added a reference to the one uncited statement there was. Marking as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 20:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 17Edit


[Closed] Russian hacking scandalEdit

Closing. Again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Once again, consensus against adding this. BencherliteTalk 19:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: The Russian hacking scandal has been a major part of the US news for months now. For any national news outlet in the US, the main headline for any given day will be, just as likely as not, something about Donald Trump and the Russians. The news coverage, especially the 24-hour cable channels, is beginning to match the coverage given to Watergate (before the hearings) almost 50 years ago. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It has been going on since Nov , and is a story that is being pushed by the media that is hostile to Trump. (and I myself do not care for Trump, but I absolutely detest how the media's behaving in all this). It's all still allegations, nothing has been verified, and what is "news" (such as the recent bits about Trump Jr's meeting) is very much hostile. If there is a point where the situation is resolved, then we can post it, but definitely not now. This is the type of topic that WP does not do a good job at covering per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS, and definitely should not be ITN ongoing. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Nothing new under the sun. Potentially "fake news"! POV-pushing. If anything comes out of the investigation, perhaps we could post it--but right now nothing's happening. It's just clickbait and fundraising malarkey.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a very real and important story, in spite of all of the attempts to discredit it, but it could be continuing in this manner for a long time, probably too long for ongoing. If and when we start getting closer to impeachment, or charges against Kushner/Manafort/Flynn/Don Jr./etc., I could support a blurb or ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why is this getting nominated now? Instead you should have participated in the earlier discussions when it was actually relevant and timely. Also I do not agree that this wouldn't be the content that WP is doing a good job at - it's better than all the news organizations that I know of in properly and neutrally informing the public about this and there are several measures for protecting against misinformation and the like such as the levels of page protection. Also I'd oppose inclusion as Ongoing instead of a shortly appearing, elaborative and non-implicative blurb at the time that it's most appropriate. This time is over now. --Fixuture (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This should be reopened. One might argue whether this should get posted or not, but at the least the discussion should have remained open for a reasonable amount of time. This topic is in the news, globally, with new developments emerging in the last few days. Which indicates that notwithstanding a previous nomination (a while ago it seems), this (re-)nomination had merit. Deserving of a serious discussion (i.e. not the shrill nonsense by Zigzig20), not a closure after just 77 minutes. Poor admin decision. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:BC43:B2E7:865E:F5E7 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I wouldn't have mentioned it except that I'm new at this. I ran a few searches of the archives and turned up nothing. Where can we find articles that have already been turned down for ITN? When was the last time this article was turned down before this iteration? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The last time was May, about Comey's firing. The search box is in the expandable box just under "Suggestions", though I think hiding that box is not helpful, it should be visible. I will see to fixing that. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You can find them in the archives. Here: 1, 2, 3. Concerning early closure I agree with that and here I suggested establishing a minimum amount of time nominations are guaranteed open debate. (Maybe you can get this going?) While there might sometimes be good reasons for early closure such as saving time and efforts of people and preempting canvassing or alike I don't think they outweigh the benefits and need for proper discussion-times (even if that's just 1 day) − especially when considering ways short open-discussion-times could be exploited or result in biased outcomes and ways we could manage problems such as parties canvassing participants (I'm not implying that this would be a major problem as of right now). --Fixuture (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fixuture: As I've just posted to the talk page here, minimum discussion times have been rejected in the past. If a user new to the discussion believes in good faith that the nomination merits posting, they can reopen an discussion like the above. You are again seeing a problem that isn't here as far as I know(with regards to canvassing for a brief discussion). 331dot (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The box specifically says "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.". So no, discussions cannot be reopened or at least that is very strongly discouraged. Specific to this nomination, I would hope that the closing editor will reopen and allow the discussion to take its course, all given that this nomination has merit and deserves consideration. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 16Edit


[Closed] Chinese-American student's 10-year prison sentence in IranEdit

Strong consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Xiyue Wang (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iran sentences Xiyue Wang, a Chinese-American graduate student at Princeton University, to 10 years in prison for espionage; the US responds by calling for the release of "US citizens and other foreigners on fabricated national-security related changes."
News source(s): Cunningham, Erin; Morello, Carol (July 16, 2017). "Iran sentences Princeton graduate student to 10 years for espionage, report says". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 17, 2017.; Redden, Elizabeth (July 17, 2017). "Iran Jails Princeton Ph.D. Student as Spy". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved July 17, 2017.; Dehghan, Saeed Kamali (July 16, 2017). "Iran sentences Chinese-born American to 10 years in jail on spying charges". The Guardian. Retrieved July 17, 2017.
Nominator's comments: This is a stub but it seems significant. Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose foreigner imprisoned, seemingly unfairly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I also saw it in the news, but it does not seem important enough for ITN. Besides, the Iranian court has allowed him to appeal the sentence, so it's not the final verdict. -Zanhe (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not unusual at all; the only reason to post this is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The RS I cited did not wait for us to "right wrongs" and why do you think this is not unusual? CNN suggests this is somewhat unusual!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
CNN can publish whatever they want or advocate for whatever they want. Iran is not a fan of the US and detains Americans not infrequently. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
How many are there? CNN suggests there are only 3 plus Xiyue Wang. If you are able to provide us with a reliable third-party source on the number of US citizens currently detained in Iran, please let us know. Facts please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I mean in general. [34][35][36] 331dot (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry. These links are about the two Namazis and Shahini (who are counted in the CNN article), and the journalists were released (also mentioned in the CNN article). If there are only three US citizens currently detained in Iran (including Xiyue Wang) and only a fourth one awaiting appeal, it's not "not unusual".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I mean that in general Iran is quick to detain Americans, not just at this specific time. There was the 10 US sailors a few years ago, and I think some British ones before that. If you see it as unusual, fair enough, I don't and have nothing else to add. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the article is barely a stub, and honestly might not survive an WP:AFD. The story, however, is making headlines and is as notable as any other. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
User:CosmicAdventure: Can you please expand it? Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I read the nom articles, I don't contribute to them. The reasons are none of your business. If there is some WP:ITN/MINIMUMPARTICIPATION I'm missing, please let me know. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
No but anyone is welcome to expand articles. If you think it's too short, you can expand it. Or someone else will. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unless the event is leading to a serious diplomatic crisis between the US and Iran. STSC (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2017 Venezuelan referendumEdit

Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Venezuelan referendum, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than seven million Venezuelans take part in an opposition-organised unofficial referendum, overwhelmingly voting against the government's approval of a Constitutional Assembly.
Alternative blurb: ​An unofficial referendum organized by the opposition takes place in Venezuela, rejecting the Constitutional Assembly.
Alternative blurb II: ​More than seven million Venezuelans take part in an opposition-organised unofficial referendum, with a strong majority rejecting the Constitutional Assembly.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Washington Post
Nominator's comments: First time I nominate an article and English isn't my mother tongue, so the blurb might need slight rewording. This is an important event in the context of the current Venezuelan protests and constitutional crisis, as well as the only electoral rejection of the Assembly (since referendum to ask for the approval or rejection of the Assembly didn't take place previously). It should also be noted that because of the results the National Assembly, the institution that organized the process, announced today the election of new judges of the Supreme Court and a national strike. Jamez42 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. The article states that the referendum is "unofficial"(which suggests the government is not involved) but it was authorized by the National Assembly. Do you mean that it is "nonbinding"?(as in only advisory)? 331dot (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment: There was a similar question in the talk page of the article and it's something that needs to be clarified in the content of the article, something I'd like to help with both in the Spanish and English versions. In short, it is binding for the opposition controlled Assembly but nonbinding for the government, including the Executive, Judiciary and Electoral branches. Opposition spokespersons argue that article 70 of our constitution states explicitly that a "popular consultation" is a method of participation and that citizen decisions are binding, and that the consultation is organized based on articles 333 and 350, which calls upon civil disobedience. However, government officials dismiss the consultation, even going as far to call it as a "poll", and have defined it as a plebiscite that is not in the constitution and that the last time a plebiscite took place was under the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. The binding status of the referendum is part of several arguments made by government and opposition alike and is an example of the current polarization that the country is going through. The Constitutional Assembly won't be cancelled, but the National Assembly will continue to organize protests and legal actions based in the results. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The plebiscite went 98% against Maduro. That's a sure sign of an invalid result. Especially because Maduro's vote on July 30 will go 98% in favor of him. We posted dissolution of the assembly in March. We also posted and pulled an item on protests in April. There's a story to tell, and it probably belongs in ITN, but not sure this is how we will frame it. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose lost me at "unofficial". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The popular consultation went 98% because it was summoned by the opposition, but it doesn't mean it is an invalid result: it was supervised and assisted by several Venezuelan NGOs, a commission of five former foreign presidents and five rectors of different universities. The only reason it's "unofficial" it's because it wasn't organized by the Electoral branch, but international reactions and petitions to stop the Constitutional Assembly, including from the UN and the European Union, prove its relevancy. In any case I understand it may not be the best way to portray the current situation in the INT and it may be better to wait until the July 30 election. I'd like to suggest the article is included in the current events portal if possible. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support the concept, weak oppose this nomination - Venezuela's going through a defining moment in its history, so I feel something from the ongoing crisis should be on ITN. This, however, is skirting the edge. It's an unofficial referendum, the voter sample is clearly extremely biased, and the turnout is less than 25% 40% of the total Venezuela population. I would prefer to put something like 2017 Venezuelan protests in ongoing, but that's unfortunately not going to happen. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Striking 25% since it's clearly wrong (thanks Jamez42). 40% is much more respectable, but still not sufficient. I might consider supporting if it's 51%. Banedon (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I dislike posting a comment for the third time because I feel I'm overdefending the nomination, to put it in some way, and that it may be annoying, but as a Venezuelan I think this is a landmark event and it would help to illustrate the evolution and the future of the crisis: After announcing the results, the National Assembly declared that today it would start nominating new judges for the Supreme Court and create tomorrow a new "government of national unity" (I apologize for the Spanish sources), asides from summoning a national strike this Thursday. Of course, these events don't have an article on their own and would need to develop a whole new series of events to deserve one, like the new opposition cabinet, for instance. Maybe the blurb could be changed accordingly to mention the events and said article; After the unofficial referendum in Venezuela, the National Assembly names new judges of the Supreme Tribunal and creates a new government, for example.
I also wanted to clarify that only 19,805,002 persons of the population are in the Electoral Registry of Venezuela, or in other words, the people that are allowed to vote, including being over 18 years old and having a Venezuelan nationality. In an official election this would mean a 39% turnout. Although low, this is more than half (53%) of the voters that participated in the last elections in 2015 (14,385,349 voters), almost as many votes received by the opposition that won the election (7,728,025 votes) and more than the votes received by the opposition candidate in the last presidential election (7,363,980), even though there was only a third of the voting centers of an official election, the electoral campaign didn't have any exposure in the television or radio networks and that the referendum was organized in two weeks. Once again I'm sorry if I'm being too insistent in any way, I understand that there are reasons to disregard the results and there's still a week left to see how events develop, but the most important part of the referendum is that it marks a new phase of the protests and the crisis, the so called "Zero Hour". --Jamez42 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I think as things develop, we will see a more notable event in the news. Though this drew plenty of international attention, it is so controversial and unofficial that there will always be those skeptical of the event.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is all rather complex and took some time to disentangle, but as far as I can tell this poll isn't recognised by anyone except the opposition and won't lead to any concrete action. The wording and turnout sample are clearly highly biased. This is obviously part of a power struggle within Venezuela; that may well be worth posting at some point, but this poll isn't it. The article doesn't really help to clarify the situation for readers unfamiliar with the story, and promoting it on the Main Page would be a POV nightmare. Maybe if/when the new constitution is put to a referendum, or enacted without one, we could feature the story in ITN. Modest Genius talk 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius - an unofficial referendum that changes nothing shouldn't be posted. BencherliteTalk 21:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Nar Bahadur BhandariEdit

Article: Nar Bahadur Bhandari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTV

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ex Sikkim Chief Minister of India Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Summer X Games 2017Edit

Article: X Games Minneapolis 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Summer X Games conclude with the United States winning 11 gold medals.
News source(s): The Sun Daily SB Nation

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The X Games are one of the biggest extreme sports competition held in the world. Earlier this year, I nominated the Winter X Games for ITN after doing quite a bit of updating to the article, and I have done the same now. While the X Games are obviously not the Olympics, a majority of the summer events are not events at the Olympics so this is the top event for these athletes/this is the premier event for these sports. For anyone confused with the blurb (there was a little confusion when the Winter games were posted), the United States won the most gold medals, hence why they are featured in the blurb. Andise1 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose I looked back over previous such articles (last year's doesn't exist) and discovered that the event was rated of "low importance" to the Dallas Texas wikiproject. If that's the case, I'm not really sure why it would be of sufficient importance to the English-speaking world to feature amongst the top five news stories across the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Much as I hate to disagree with you, TRM, I don't really see why the Dallas WikiProject's view of a previous event's importance has any real relevance here. Link to Winter Games discussion. BencherliteTalk 08:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
      • If such an event is considered of little to no importance to the host US state city, I'm not sure why anyone else would be bothered. That we don't have an article for the last running is somewhat indicative, and as such I oppose based on the low importance of the event. I didn't see it anywhere near the BBC Sport homepge (for example) whereas I did see Wimbledon, British Grand Prix, Tour de France, Mayweather/Connor, Teat cricket, women's Euro 2017, US Women's Golf etc... And fewer than a quarter of the medal recipients appear to be notable enough for an article. Is this really significant? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Dallas is a city, not a state. A lot happens in a city, let alone a state, and it's no particular surprise to me that it's of low importance to that particular WikiProject. After all, WP:LONDON has assessed the Boat Races 2017 as "low importance" but that's equally irrelevant. Your other arguments about notability of participants, level of coverage etc are stronger, so focus on those! BencherliteTalk 09:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I don't need any further focus on this story though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Which edition has Dallas Wikiproject? This event has never been held in Dallas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
              • I meant Texas. All the same to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                • Ireland and Belfast. All the same, right?--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                  • If you say so chief. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                    • Texas is the #2 US state by land/population and bigger than 5 Englands. Is it that hard to recognize it's stativity? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                      • Is that even a thing?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                        • No, but Texas's statehood is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                          • No doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                            • Texas secession.--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
                              • Great moves, lonely star. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
                                • That's less likely than Basque independence, Catalonian independence and maybe Argentine Falklands though. Anti-EU parts of your nation becoming a full UN sovereign and giving the nukes and security council seat and part of the military to the rump UK might be more likely​. I don't think Texas is going to become a sovereign nation again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose(and I'm not convinced the winter ones merited posting) This event is owned and was created by ESPN to generate ratings and competitors participate to win money aside from medals. It's basically a TV show like American Ninja Warrior; they have these every year unlike other multisport events(and these are not mainstream sports but "extreme" sports). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficiently comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not see the significance of this in the larger scheme of things. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 16:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Regardless of it being the highest level of event for these sports, if we posted the highest level of every minor niche sport, ITN would be overrun. Also, it hardly appears to be covered in mainstream media. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough influence and coverage in mainstream media. -Zanhe (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Black Kite - sports not prominent enough for ITN, coverage lacking too. BencherliteTalk 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: George RomeroEdit

Article: George A. Romero (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): THW

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article needs major work to be RD ready. MASEM (t) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Director that brought us the zombie movie genre. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Major influence on the horror movie genre. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Article quality not up to par; orange tag present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the orange tag was added after I nom'd this, though I don't disagree with its concerns. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There were only two CNs left. I added some citations, not sure if they are up to snuff. Can someone take a look? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    At a quick glance, the Books and Awards and nominations sections are in need of proper references. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you; tagged those. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Should we make sure he's dead for good first? He might arise and start attempting to eat our brains ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per notability. Additionally, he died more recently than the other names in the "Recent deaths" box, having passed on the 16th, while the current most recent passing shown in that box is Martin Landau, who died on the 15th. –Matthew - (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Notability is not in question. See above: Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Hm. Well that's a bit silly. –Matthew - (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    I addressed TRM's notes. Can one of the vet's recheck the citations? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    The sections "1970s-1980", "1990s", and "2000s" are still predominately unsourced. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very well sourced article for a man who is extremely notable. 1779Days (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @1779Days:: He is notable no doubt but the article still needs sourcing from the 1990s and I believe 2000s subsections in the Career section. Some entire large paragraphs don't even have sources. That shouldn't be an issue though since this man is heavily well known finding sources shouldn't be an issue, but the article is in not the best shape for posting due to lack of citations thus why adding refimprove template for the 1990s and 2000s section was needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality There are sections (mainly 1990s and 2000s) still very unsourced with chunks of paragraphs that go unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update / continued support: As the page stands at the time I am writing this, the article seems fairly well sourced. The 1990s and 2000s sections seem to have been corrected, and I've cleaned up said citations to prevent link rot. The page does not appear to be significantly subpar. So can we do it now? –Matthew - (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 23:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] New DoctorEdit

Consensus will not emerge to post. Stephen 13:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jodie Whittaker (talk, history)
Blurb: Jodie Whittaker (pictured) is announced as the next actor to play the role of The Doctor in Doctor Who.
News source(s): BBC USA Today CNN ABC Australia
Nominator's comments: Expecting this to be a contentious one, as we tend not to post many entertainment stories, but here goes:
  • We don't post enough entertainment stories, especially TV, even though it's a huge industry
  • Millions of people will be coming to Wikipedia to find out who Jodie Whittaker is
  • This is big news. Yes, it's in the entertainment section, but that doesn't stop this being big news.
  • The first female Doctor makes this an even bigger story than it otherwise would be

Bold article could be Jodie Whittaker or The Doctor (Doctor Who). I assume Thirteenth Doctor will only become an article once Whittaker's episodes come to air. LukeSurl t c 15:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Subject to her article being sourced and all BLP issues addressed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Significant milestone in entertainment news. Show is known worldwide and has aired for decades. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, big news. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Yes, entertainment news is typically not ITN, but DW has international appeal, and this being the first female in the lead role is unique. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Not every recasting of a notable role would merit posting, but this role has such wide notability and is so long-running that this sort of change meets the bar IMO. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No way this rises to global significance. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: Global significance is not required; if it were, very little would be posted. I also disagree with your premise, Doctor Who is known worldwide, and I say that as a non fan. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Riding a very fine line with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and/or WP:ADVOCACY; however, it is indeed true entertainment news is almost completely exclusive to awards and deaths. Doctor Who has a large global fanbase and this appears to be a significant change of pace for casting. This appears to be part of the ongoing trend/push for prominent female roles in TV and movies rather than something novel or unexpected. Long story short, I don't see any harm including this but am a bit hesitant with singling out this one show. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

*Neutral - leaning on the fence here. Yes, this is big news and will have significant worldwide impact. However, one could very reasonably argue that, if this were posted, the fact that Game of Thrones is back again tonight would also be of note and worthy of a blurb given its worldwide impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons above and article quality. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose A woman being cast in the typically male role? It's still a TV show. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The news about the lead role in a TV drama is hardly significant news. ITN is not a tabloid. STSC (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@STSC: Neither are The Guardian, The New York Times and TIME.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You're missing my point... Have they put the story on their front page? ITN is on Wikipedia's front page, for God's sake. STSC (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, take a look here, where you'll see she's very much featured on the front page of 85% of all major British newspapers at least. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Support but blurb should note she is the first woman in the role. This is an internationally watched and very popular and long-running show, and this role always attracts scads of media interest when it is periodically recast. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: nowhere near global media coverage. A re-casting in a TV show isn't front-page of Wikipedia noteworthy. DrStrauss talk 17:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Neutral, leaning support: I pretty much echo Cyclonebiskit's views. Notability is fine but the blurb needs to be worded carefully to avoid WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DrStrauss talk 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Perfect for ITN - big news and many people will be coming here to find out who Jodie Whittaker is. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - entertainment news is popular for sure, but in the big scheme of things, it's simply too trivial by ITN standards. -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN is not meant for BBC casting press releases. This is the equivalent a sci-fi version of James Bond. Over the past two decades, only two have officially played Bond yet this is the fifth person to take this role. Quality-wise, her stage and radio credits are unsourced. Half of her filmography is also unreferenced, since her BFI page does not list minor roles or short films. And a pitiful one-line update sums up this event: Whittaker becomes the 13th person to play popular TV character, also happens to be first female. Woo? Fuebaey (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose both on merits and article quality. This is far below the level of importance we generally look for in nominations. This ranks right up there with the latest updates from "Game of Thrones." And as noted above there are some significant shortcoming in the article, including glaring gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree. Rami R 19:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support since the series has global appeal, and she is the first woman to play the role. This is Paul (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the BBC's flagship television series; normally not newsworthy but the fact someone female will be playing the role is, for whatever reasons, huge. It would be completely ridiculous not to include it, especially as the article is decent. Aiken D 20:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as I like Doctor Who (though I'll admit I'm behind on the current season), I don't see how this is significant enough to be on the front page. That said, if it does get posted, the blurb should mention that this first female Doctor Who otherwise the blurb doesn't make sense unless you're familiar with the show. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A minuscule percentage of the human race/English-speaking world/Wikipedia readers watch Doctor Who or care about this topic. Even as a viewer of the show myself, I have no interest in seeing this story here. Abductive (reasoning) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That's the case with 95% of what we post. So this amounts to not liking the idea of posting this. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose strictly because of article quality. Filmography is unreferenced. Otherwise I'm fine with this going up. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disposable entertainment news getting undue attention because the show's carrier is also a news behemoth and can thus use its news outlet as an instrument for promoting the show. The chief reasons given for posting this appear to be that Doctor Who is very popular, and that a female was cast - but so what? This is so far from being a milestone for women that nobody is even bothering to seriously argue that, which makes this no more significant or interesting than who gets cast in Game of Thrones, Star Trek, Star Wars, or any other wildly popular entertainment franchise. - Lvthn13 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If we were to post this, casting changes at the CCTV New Year's Gala would deserve to be made an ITN/R. Considered the most popular TV program in the world, its average audience of 700-800 million dwarfs the 10 million for Doctor Who. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If this is posted I'll go ahead and make the nomination. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Disappointing to see pointy threats just because you don't like a potential posting. The two programs are very different. 331dot (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm equally disappointed you're calling it a "pointy threat". It's like saying anyone who opposed the RD reform should not make any RD nominations of people who would've failed the old criteria, or it's a "pointy threat". Have you ever considered that I'm going to nominate this for ITNR because I value consistency? Banedon (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Then I take you at your word but I call them as I see them, as we all do. "We must post X because we posted Y" is a poor argument unless you support your proposal on the merits. 331dot (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Believe it, I've done this before [37]. Banedon (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - By virtue on the number of comments this has received. Clearly, no one can claim that this is not notable after this. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That must be one of the most ridiculous justifications I've heard for an ITN nomination. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Zanhe. Unexpected casting decision, but fleeting and niche in global affairs. Brandmeistertalk 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suspect most people don't even know what Doctor Who is, let alone care who is acting in it. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for your suspicions? That seems to be another argument that boils down to IDONTLIKEIT. According to Doctor Who the show "has been broadcast internationally outside of the United Kingdom since 1964"(how many programs can you say that about) and that it "has been or is currently broadcast weekly in more than 50 countries"(contratry to your "most people don't know" argument) 331dot (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Read the article. "At the time of Season 19's broadcast in 1982 the show was being watched by a global audience of 98 million, 88 million in 38 foreign countries, and an average of ten million in the United Kingdom." Then compare world population. I can support this if we set some kind of arbitrary standard on number of people affected, and that number is greater than 10 million. But we didn't post the iPhone 8 release (~300 million active iPhones) or Windows 10 release (1.25 billion Windows machines in the world). These two events also reached every country in the world, much more than Dr Who does. Comparatively, this is insignificant. Banedon (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm biased but I'm seeing few policy based arguments in opposition(some opposition on article quality). 331dot (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've been watching this show religiously since 1978. I cried when Sarah Jane Smith Died, and Romana I. But it's a SHOW. We don't do cast changes at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A casting change in a TV show is not INT worthy material. Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand both sides. I do understand and see the significance of Doctor Who having its first female Doctor especially seeing how the series itself is a cultural icon, but I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) this is suitable for Wikipedia: In the News since it is a show after all and it is a casting change in summary. This is, me personally, seeing a show being nominate for a possible blurb in Doctor Who. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above comments. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An announcement about cast change on a TV show does not qualify as one of the top half dozen news stories in the world. I also suspect newsworthiness is mainly limited to majority-white, English speaking countries, of which there are only a handful. Adpete (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    Almost half a billion people live in "majority-white, English speaking countries". Rami R 09:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the only people this is really "news" to are those kinds of people to whom we should not be pandering. This is a perfectly logical sequitur in casting these days, and as we all know that Doctor Who is an alien and regenerates periodically, this is of no real newsworthiness other than a "oh?". Perhaps try for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I love Doctor Who, but in no way do I think we should start posting casting decisions and other entertainment news to ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we post first female in a particular fictional role, then would we post the first black, Asian etc. in a typically white role? It's not real news. Jim Michael (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: It depends on the role(as is the case with any posting here). If Idris Elba were cast as James Bond,[38] I think that would be big news and merit posting. Some very few roles have the interest and widespread knowledge to merit this sort of attention. For not being "real news" this is making news. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
FWIW you can expect me to nominate the casting of the next James Bond, regardless of who they are. --LukeSurl t c 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@LukeSurl: Not to debate that here- I understand doing so but I probably wouldn't support it unless it was a first of some kind(like Elba or even a woman). 331dot (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Please keep discussions about RY issue elsewhere, thanks. BencherliteTalk 09:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Indeed, and ironically it easily meets the WP:RY guidelines for inclusion in 2017! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
How do you work that out? Casting decisions are never featured on RY articles.Jim Michael (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
It meets the criteria. Globally significant event covered in at least three continents. Bingo. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not - it's by no means globally significant. As you know, the 3CR is only part of the inclusion criteria. 2017 in British television is its proper place. Jim Michael (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it's the minimum requirement, not "part" of it. And yes, globally significant, Doctor Who is broadcast globally, the story is being reported globally, RY here we come! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
And if that were the case, why isn't "January 26 – Scientists at Harvard University report the first creation of metallic hydrogen in a laboratory.[4][5]" just listed in the 2017 in science article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Filmography (including television, stage, and radio) is now fully referenced. Pinging @Stormy clouds:, @Ad Orientem:, @CosmicAdventure: whose !votes were partially based on this issue. --LukeSurl t c 10:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I resolved to nominate this before the announcement happened. I think James Bond and The Doctor are the two regularly-re-cast roles for which the casting is significant enough for ITN regardless of who takes the role. --LukeSurl t c 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnking and LukeSurl, it easily falls into the criteria as far as ITN's purpose goes, and there are very few famous creations which continuously get recast *and* that recasting makes significant headlines. James Bond, Dr Who and Batman/Superman/Spiderman being the only ones off-hand I can think of. Dr Who being the only one where that recasting is actually part of the character background itself. Many of the oppose votes above are just 'its not significant enough' which when faced with the many articles around the world covering it, is laughable. Its TV, and its pop culture, but its clearly in the news and of interest to a significant number of people. My question to the above oppose voters (excluding those who have quality concerns) is where were you when the Turkish March for Justice was approved? An event that is largely insignificant to anyone outside Turkey or who is not of Turkish heritage. That you feel the need to deny so strongly its significance, clearly indicates the opposite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unexciting casting decision in a long-running television programme. That's fine for the tabloids and rolling news channels, but has no real long-term encyclopaedic impacts. ITN is not a showbiz news ticker. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested to know if you would ever support an entertainment news story for ITN? This is receiving coverage way outside tabloids and rolling news channels, and we would not be fulfilling the role of a showbiz news ticker but be "helping readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" which is part of ITN's purpose. Many people who have heard that a female Doctor has been cast may not know much about Jodie Whittaker or even recall her name.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I find it difficult to imagine an entertainment story that is truly "news," and not press release. The ouster of the head of Disney, maybe? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Can I propose that the article update has to be more substantive than the blurb itself to warrant highlighting it? "Oh, they cast a woman as DW? Let's read more about that...Oh, there's nothing more to read." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I've added a few lines - I will try and expand it more. She's just given her first interview since the announcement.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wimbledon 2017Edit

Articles: 2017 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (talk, history) and 2017 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, the 2017 Wimbledon Championships conclude with Garbiñe Muguruza winning the women's singles and Roger Federer winning the men's singles.
News source(s): Women's Men's

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Both singles tournament articles pretty light on the prose right now. LukeSurl t c 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, not too bad. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on lack of prose. While not every match needs a blurb, I would expect these two specific matches have some prose for them. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Men's Singles final also notable as being a record 8th win for Federer. Dramatic when Cilic broke down and had to take a medical break. Both finals were decisive straight sets wins. So maybe an enhanced blurb would be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support if the blurb just concentrates on Federer's record 8th title at Wimbledon (beating Pete Sampras' record). STSC (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I propose an alternative whereby Roger Federer is the linked article and, as STSC says, note that he's won in 2017, thereby surpassing Sampras. DrStrauss talk 17:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable because he's set a new record by winning it for the eighth time. This is Paul (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the target articles appear to be simply tables of results. Where are the summaries of the finals? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R. If the event articles are too barebones, we could highlight the articles of the champions. Garbiñe Muguruza is not well referenced, but Roger Federer is a GA. -Zanhe (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, that's allowable but only once Mururuza's article is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • So is it "up to scratch" yet? It has no templates or tags on it. 109.144.222.11 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The '2017: Wimbledon champion' section - which is the update - has only one reference for five paragraphs of text. I'm amazed this is still awaiting decent article updates six days after she won. Modest Genius talk 10:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 15Edit


[Posted] RD: Martin LandauEdit

Article: Martin Landau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox 8

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Renowned actor, more sourcing needed in the Film, television and theater section but otherwise looking good. EternalNomad (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality Woefully undersourced. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not a big issue but I had posted the nom under the 16th because the news was only just announced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
We generally put the nom on the day of the death, even if the news was delayed a day or so; only if the case that the death was purposely kept quiet by family until they had their chance to mourn or pay respects do we then post on the day the news broke. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ready. I've removed the unsourced roles. If anyone has a problem wit this, they should add specific CN tags. Otherwise Landau is quite legendary as a character actor and the lead of Space 1999. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I completely disagree that pushing the filmography to a separate page to ignore the sourcing issues there , particularly with how short the bio is and there's no SIZE issue, makes this ready for posting. I expect the filmography to be reasonably sourced. (eg [39]) --MASEM (t) 04:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been updated and sourced well enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear testing at Bikini AtollEdit

Article: Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The marine ecosystem is thriving despite persistent radiation from nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists have found marine organisms that are highly resilient to the radiation from previous nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll.
News source(s): I first saw coverage in The Guardian (Australia) on 15 July 2017. It also received coverage in The Independent [40] on that date, at Newser [41] and in The Stanford Daily [42]. There was earlier coverage at Radio New Zealand [43], Xinhuanet [44], Phys.org [45], and USA Today [46]. The story was also covered by PBS in an episode of their Big Pacific series.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I read about this on 15 July and have added a new section to the article: Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll#Recovery of marine ecosystem. This has added 13 new references to the article, and the cumulative update amounts to 592 words (according to DYK check). The content could easily be added to the Bikini Atoll article, too, and either could be the target. The difficulty that I see is whether the recent news coverage is the relevant date or the older coverage from the last few weeks. Any / all comments and suggestions welcome, including for alternative blurbs. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support When I first saw the title of the nomination my immediate reaction was that this was about 60 years stale. However I have been pleasantly surprised with a well sourced and very interesting update to an article that was already both detailed and in reasonably good shape. There are a handful of spots that could use a cite but not enough IMO to stand in the way of posting. Good job to the updating editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait Technically coverage started on July 6 (from USA Today) so this could be considered stale, but also as the USA Today article points out, this is unpublished research, so there's no peer-review confirmation. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see this as of sufficient significance and it is unpublished research. Neljack (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment on "unpublished research": It is true that the findings of the genetic studies are not yet available nor peer reviewed, but the basic facts in the update are observational. In this environment where humans cannot live because all of the biosphere except the air is contaminated with radiation, there is a flourishing marine ecosystem. The evidence is not only the observations of the researchers, it has been broadcast on PBS and substantiated by photographs in some of the noted links - this Radio New Zealand article includes a 12 minute interview with Stephen Palumbi and a series of photographs. I have yet to add this reference to the article, but I plan to later today (irrespective of how this ITN nomination turns out). Claims about how the ecosystem manages to be healthy in substantial radiation would need publication and peer review, I agree, but that the apparently healthy ecosystem exists despite the radiation is an observation that is substantiated, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Some recovery of corals was reported already in 2008: [47]. Brandmeistertalk 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Interesting, but not a news story in the usual sense of the term. More of a feature. Sca (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I stand by my support but if it doesn't make it at ITN I'd definitely suggest sending this up as a DYK nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Question what did we learn from Bikini Atoll that we didn't already know from Chernobyl? Banedon (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportProfoundly interesting information and article is well sourced and update. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a nice story but it's not really something I'd expect to see on the top five or six global events covered at ITN. It's not so much an event, more a confirmation of what we probably already knew, and has been known for a while, so I'm not even sure of its "newsworthiness". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb] RD: Maryam MirzakhaniEdit

Article: Maryam Mirzakhani (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Iranian(-American?) mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani, the first woman to be awarded the Fields Medal, dies aged 40.
News source(s): [48][49]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First (and thus far only) female winner of the Fields Medal. She died after fighting breast cancer. The article is in a pretty good state, though a few details might still need citations (including the date of death). Dragons flight (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I lean towards RD only. Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Would prefer blurb rather than RD for being the first female to win Fields medal. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Article is fine for RD posting. I don't think this needs a blurb, as the Fields medal is not the same as something like the Nobel, and we should avoid focusing too much on recognizing "first X to win"-type importance for blurbs, if that's the only reason to have a blurb. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Fields award. while important, lacks the recognition of the Nobel prizes. RD exists for a reason. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support either of RD or blurb. We should really promote RDs rightaway, as soon as there is consensus for an RD listing. RDs may still be later turned into a blurb as soon as there is consensus for that as well. Can't believe discussion on blurb-or-not is holding up a plain RD listing. --PanchoS (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The Field's medal is essentially as prestigious as the Nobel Prize for other subjects (the Abel Prize is comparable, but is awarded more frequently than the Field's medal). Combined with the fact that she is the first and only female mathematician to receive the prize in 80 years, and the fact that she died very young and while still very active, I am inclined to support a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support a blurb, given the significance of the Fields Medal and the fact that she was the first woman to win one. Howver, no-one has written a blurb so I support a RD. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD for now; discussion for blurb still open. SpencerT♦C 23:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. As I have previously stated, I believe blurbs are only called for if there is–or there could be–an article on the death, such as Death of Osama bin Laden. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, wrote blurb I would not go as far as to say that they must need an article on their death to deserve a blurb. Given the magnitude and uniqueness of her achievement, and her young age, I'd say she deserves a blurb. I furthermore posit that opponents should reflect on the well established documentation on gender bias and editing on Wikipedia before making reflexive statements and keep in mind WP:AVERAGE. --Varavour (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb This is what the RD section is for. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb First female Fields medalist is a highly important milestone in mathematics. This is also notable as she won the Medal so recently, so her name is recognizable, unlike a Medalist from the 1970s or something. Johnny3887 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per EternalNomad. Gamaliel (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment A lot of people above are saying that the Fields cannot be compared to the Nobel (for which Liu Xiaobo was just posted). However, since there is no Nobel for mathematics, there is virtually universal agreement that the Fields is the 'Nobel for mathematics'. I would go further to say that it is more prestigious, because it is awarded four times less frequently and also has an age limit of 40. Johnny3887 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved to blurb per (weak) consensus above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I really caution about using weak consensus to move an RD to a blurb; we already had RD, so it should require a stronger consensus to make that a blurb. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - first woman to win the prestigious Fields Medal, which says it all. And she died so suddenly so young. -Zanhe (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - because, in general, I think EternalNomad has made a convincing case (above). That is, I lean more toward posting this as a blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb a mathematician few people have heard of won a prize few people have heard of and has pushed off the Battle of Mosul (2016-17) which is still getting updates. Absolutely absurd. The quest to find some way to bicker about notability is bringing back the same problem RD was created to solve. It needs to stop, now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb these cavalier postings are beginning to undermine the purpose of such blurbs. This death will be easily covered by a couple of sentences and have no ongoing ramifications whatsoever. Pull it back to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (post-posting) Support blurb - untimely death of an extremely significant person in the field of mathematics. As others have noted, the Fields Medal is comparable to a Nobel Prize in terms of its prestige. Being the first and only female winner is a big deal, and her death at such a young age is a very (sadly) newsworthy event. I have a feeling Fields Medals wins have been in the blurb before, and this is a bigger story than a Fields Medal win. Adpete (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (post-posting) Support blurb - Definitely notable enough for Blurb. Untimely death that has been covered nationally and internationally.
  • Support blurb belatedly. Thank you to the posting admin. Very sad to lose her so young. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb post-posting support. The possibility of purging a previously published post is a poor basis for berating a blurb. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - (post posting support). Besides the many other good reasons already offered by others, the claim above that the blurb should be pulled because "her death will have no ongoing ramifications whatever" (presumably a Crystal Ball is the Reliable Source for this prediction) appears to be wrong already - The Guardian is reporting (here) that, contrary to normal practice, Tehran state newspapers are carrying large pictures of her without a hijab on their front page, and that the relatively liberal President Rohani has tweeted a similar picture of her, while 60 Iranian MPs have called for a change in the law so her daughter can visit Iran without hassle (the daughter has had problems because her mother was married to a non-Muslim). And that's just Iran. Others have said her impact for women in Maths is likely to be comparable to Marie Curie in other sciences (though, given our well-known gender bias, I suspect there'd also be plenty of opposition here to a blurb for Marie Curie if she had died today).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • If she is really that important, why is her article barely of size for posting to the main page? This is why the RD was perfectly fine, we have very little beyond "only woman to win the Fields" as a reason for a blurb, and that's a really bad reason for posting. This is what concerns me more is that we're posting something that, while of sufficient sourcing quality, fails the expected level of detail one would expect for a person that supposedly has great reknown. Maybe it could have been improved, I don't know, but it should have been before elevating an RD to a blurb. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:Systemic bias. When Chinese architect Wang Shu won the Pritzker Prize, he did not even have an article. It was posted to ITN regardless. Non-Western topics are seriously underrepresented on English Wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, there are going to be articles that can probably be expanded for non-Western winners of international awards like this. RD is a means to not worry about getting these up to GA-quality or the like so that we're not ignoring such deaths. But when we are talking about blurbs, that's a much higher metric that has to be reached, and a woefully short article - which probably can be expanded readily with her winning the Fields, moreso about her death, should have been done before a blurb was considered. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Concur; there is far too much focus on the importance of the subject and not the quality of article in general for blurbs. There is only one comment on the quality of the article pre-blurb posting that called it "pretty-good." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Tragic as her death is, this is exactly what we have RD for. This is not a world-changing event with massive implications; instead it is the unfortunate death of a notable person. Ergo this should be on RD, not a blurb. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

July 14Edit


[Closed] 2017 Temple Mount shootingEdit

No consensus. Stephen 05:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Temple Mount shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: Friday Prayers on Temple Mount were canceled following shooting that kill two near Lions' Gate.
Alternative blurb: ​Gunmen kill two Israeli policemen at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
News source(s): (Al Jazeera), (Haaretz), (Jerusalem Post), (BBC), (Fox news)
Nominator's comments: Major event: "Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was arested after called on Muslims to march on al-Aqsa and hold Friday prayers wherever they are stopped." This is wery sensitive spot. Jenda H. (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing which part of this is noteworthy. 2 fatalities (please do not include perps to goose the body count) in this area does not seem especially unusual. Is the Mufti's directive or Israeli response unusual? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 13:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Violence in a known area of high violence (Ala mass gun shootings in the US). Per BBC "Forty-four Israelis and five foreign nationals have been killed in nearly two years of such attacks. At least 255 Palestinians - most of them attackers, Israel says - have also been killed in that period, news agencies report. Others have been killed in clashes with Israeli troops." I don't see what makes this any different. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a significant shooting incident. STSC (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article quality is good. Shooting has recieved coverage in national and international media. And has already lead to restrictions and political comments. To say that it is insignificant is just wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Business as usual in the ongoing conflict in that region.--WaltCip (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - highly symbolic location, strong repercussions. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7C67:D283:1D5F:7E42 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty routine, doubt it will have any significant impact. Seraphim System (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS. — fortunavelut luna 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Evidently this editor has not read WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS - closing admin should discount this vote. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7C67:D283:1D5F:7E42 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is an internationally covered incident that is on the front page of most newspapers' websites. Our article is in good condition. Mamyles (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's possible this could escalate, but at the moment we are talking about two people murdered in a part of the world where religiously motivated homicide is sadly routine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - par for the course. To feature this would amount to WP:UNDUE, something we should avoid in a topic so inflammatory. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - moreover, only the second alt blurb would be considered factually accurate given agreed upon convention per death tolls. Perp deaths do not count. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Corrected. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible - Holiest site in Judaism, third holiest site in Islam further more holiest site of Five Eyes countries. As well, Jumu'ah prayer at Al-Masjid al-Aqsa was cancelled because of entry restrictions by the Government of Israel. Worldwide coverage. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Another relatively minor hate crime in Israel. Sca (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced the location outweighs the low death toll and the frequency of such incidents. Neljack (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - per Ad Orientem. Christian Roess (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as sadly routine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per IP and ongoing coverage [50]. It's also an international incident which should count for something. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shoud we open this now? This is not just going away soon. Mayor international development. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jenda H.: This nomination is almost stale (it will be automatically archived in less than 12 hours) so I suggest reopening at this point will be essentially pointless. However, if there has been significant related development that has occurred after the nomination was closed, then I suggest starting a new nomination for a blurb or ongoing might be fruitful. I have not looked at the story or article so don't currently have an opinion about whether I'd support or oppose such a nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 13Edit


[Posted] RD: Abdul-Rahman bin Abdulaziz Al SaudEdit

Article: Abdul-Rahman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Khaleej Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Senior member of the House of Saud and former Saudi Arabian deputy minister of defense and aviation Sherenk1 (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Calibri font in "Fontgate"Edit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Calibri (talk, history) and Panama Papers case (Pakistan) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Microsoft Calibri font used in a 2006 document becomes the center of controversy in Panama Papers case against Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif.
News source(s): The Guardian; Newsweek
Nominator's comments: This is notable news involving head of state, scandal, courtroom, IT, and forensic science. STSC (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe Panama Papers case is/will be notable enough for a nomination. But ITN is not the right place to highlight this detail. --LukeSurl t c 18:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose perhaps DYK, but certainly not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose. Strongly recommend DYK, unless we've seen this before. ... and what's Sharif doing with a cocktail anyway?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a trivial allegation in the grand scheme of things. Both articles also draw attention to Wikipedia's article about Calibri, which suggests a danger of self-obsession if we post this. BencherliteTalk 21:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The Calibri finding is not a trivial allegation but a vital piece of evidence; the investigators actually concluded that the document of "2006" was forged based on that finding.[51] STSC (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
By making the blurb focus on the font issue, you are trivialising the story. And as Banedon says, this isn't the end of the line anyway. BencherliteTalk 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The wording of the blurb is fully based on the sources; the sources just highlight the surprising Calibri finding in the scandal investigation against a head of state. That is not "trivialising", and it's newsworthy. STSC (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If anything about this story was to be posted - and at present you are the lone voice here - it should be along the lines of "In the Panama Papers case against Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, a court-ordered report concludes that his daughter falsified evidence to the Supreme Court", or "A report commissioned by the Supreme Court of Pakistan during its consideration of allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, concludes that he and his family cannot justify their income and assets", or something like that. Absolutely no mention of fonts, because that obscures the conclusions. But these blurbs simply ram home Banedon's point that this is not the end of the story - it is not the Supreme Court finding corruption or forgery, but a step towards possible outcomes. BencherliteTalk 08:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the points above, but this is a case where I really wish DYK could accept these type of once-in-a-while oddities of interesting but trivial stories regardless of the article's age. (a type of blurb you read and have to double take to see the humor or irony of it) --MASEM (t) 00:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose feels like this is an incremental piece of news. If this leads to a verdict in which this is the crucial piece of deciding evidence, then sure. As it is it's not the end of the story; certainly it's possible the court finds Nawaz Sharif not guilty in spite of this. I don't think this is appropriate to ITN (yet). If there's a verdict that specifically mentions this, then I'll support. Banedon (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted as Blurb] Death of Liu XiaoboEdit

Article: Liu Xiaobo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Chinese pro-democracy activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo dies aged 61.
Alternative blurb: ​Chinese pro-democracy activist, political prisoner, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo dies aged 61.
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Globally renowned human rights activist whose incarceration has hit top headlines lately. EternalNomad (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Article needs updating and sourcing (four "cn" tags at present). RD, certainly, when article is in better shape, but not presently convinced of blurbability. (edit conflict as I was in the process of nominating this for RD but EternalNomad pressed "save changes" before I did...) BencherliteTalk 13:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD (but oppose on present article quality), Neutral on blurb The RD is obvious but too many CNs floating around in the current, article. I'm not sure on the blurb. The fact that he had just been released from prison about 2 weeks prior due to having terminal cancer might make this a blurbable story, but at the same time, this isn't a former world leader or the like who's death is going to be recognized in major fashion across the global. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • To expand, on reading the NYtimes obit, it is rather important to recognize that he was still a prisoner, only released on medical parole and effectively under close guard while they tried to treat him. I would support a blurb that addressed that facet, and not just that he passed away. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ready for RD yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Highly prominent figure, "China's most prominent human rights and democracy advocate" as the BBC describes him[52], extensive worldwide coverage of his death (current main front page story of the BBC for example). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • That may depend where you are: I'm UK-based and the BBC News website's main story here is a Theresa May interview; the Charlie Gard story is also on the top row, with Liu Xiaobo on the left on the second row of stories. BencherliteTalk 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Article quality is not horrible, but it needs some work before we can post this to the front page. There are some gaps in referencing and there is an orange tag that will need to go away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is what this is for, RD is fine. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb, once the article issues are addressed. A notable figure, but nowhere near the world-changing standard we should apply for blurbs. Modest Genius talk 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. At the very top level among his field, and even if not, his death seems to be notable itself. Top news from what I see. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, once the article is properly cleaned-up. An international pro-democracy icon, whose death is being covered as such. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Both the individual and his treatment by authorities in the period leading up to his death are highly notable. Dragons flight (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. The death of a Nobel Laureate prisoner of conscience in political custody, certain to attract world wide discussion, makes this story worthy of a mention above RD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Just RD is fine, let him quietly rest in peace. STSC (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - that's what RD is for. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:4485:289:24C1:749C (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as I would for any Nobel Prize winner. Connor Behan (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Any Nobel winner? Every dead physicist, chemist, writer etc who won a Nobel prize deserves a blurb? That's far from being the current view. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
      • True, the argument I gave is not good. The fact that he received the prize while in prison was what made it unforgettable though. Connor Behan (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, considering he died in prison and never received his prize. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it's about the ninth story on the BBC homepage. It's really not going to create a Death of Liu Xiaobo article, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Nobel laureate status does not guarantee a blurb. Given that the entire European Union was awarded the prize, awardees die daily. I don't think the news worthiness of his death given his imprisonment separates him from the crowd either. Fails to qualify per the self-imposed Mandela-Thatcher-Kohl paradigm. Firm support for RD, however. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • We're in the minority, but I'm with you. In an RD world, my blurb bar is exceedingly high. German Chancellors and Chinese dissidents don't top it. Neither did Carrie Fisher or that dead boxer. We have to stop with the "Posted X, therefore we should post Y" --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
      • What you are saying is clearly that you don't want to post any death-related blurbs at all, not even for the most notable politicians on the world stage. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
For God's sake, he wasn't a politician. STSC (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And nobody claimed he was. But the editor above claimed that not even Merkel, the world's (or at least the western world's) most prominent leader as of 2017, would qualify. If not even Merkel would qualify, I don't know of any politician who would. So the issue appears to be a general opposition to posting death-related blurbs at all. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Mandela and Thatcher: Iconic leaders known worldwide well after retirement, state funerlas that generated days of news, subjects of major motion pictures. That's my bar for politicians for example. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thatcher does not rise to the level of Merkel and never did. Nobody called her the leader of the free world or the western world's most important political leader. Mandela's main claim to fame was his Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-apartheid activities, not his later service as president for five years in a country that is a small player on the world stage. Liu, like Mandela, also received the Nobel Peace Prize. So he could be said to be the Chinese equivalent of Mandela. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Uhm, Mandela had the whole first black president of post apartheid South Africa and "Father of the Nation" thing going for him. Merkel is still alive, I have no idea what your problem is there. Thatcherism vs Merkelism? Doesn't seem to be a way to compare. Anyway, I don't mind that Xiaobo pushed off the staggeringly irrelevant rugby game, but the whole point of RD was so that obit blurbs wouldn't push off stories for things that are actually happening. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "In an RD world, my blurb bar is exceedingly high." I'm of the exact opposite opinion. In a paradigm where everyone gets an RD, a blurb is how we can indicate a notable passing. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb 100 times more important than Carrie Fisher and the other nobodies that got posted 172.56.6.25 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Not so. (Just to make it clear, I support as well, but for the circumstances surrounding the death, not the importance of the person.) I would hardly call Carrie Fisher, David Bowie, Prince, Nelson Mandela, and Margaret Thatcher "nobodies". See Google results- about 7 million for Liu, about 40 million for Fisher, about 50 million for David Bowie, about 15 million for Margaret Thatcher, about 36 million for Nelson Mandela, about 28 million for Prince. See also David Bowie discography, this, and 92 kB of readable prose size for Nelson Mandela, 63 kB readable prose size for Margaret Thatcher, and 57 kB readable prose size for Prince, versus 25 kB for Liu. These people were definitely not nobodies. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb And there are still some CN tags that need fixing before posting to RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - very important figure. Award/prize winner. Top field.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Mostly because it becomes non-neutral to omit the information that he died from cancer in custody. 112.65.190.108 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb very prominent Chinese figure. starship.paint ~ KO 02:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, he is only the second person in Nobel history who has died with his prize uncollected. The most recent Nobel laureate to die (before Liu) appears to be Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov (a Physics laureate in 2003) on March 29 of this year; he was aged 88. So this is by no means a 'common' occurrence, especially considering Liu's much younger age. Johnny3887 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb it's not an usual death of a Nobel laureate. He died in state custody, and it's the first time a Nobel Peace laureate died in custody since Carl von Ossietzky died in 1938 in Nazi Germany.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Death show's great significance with his death being in custody while being a Nobel Prize winner and article has been in good condition upon his death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest immediate post to RD, discussion on blurb can continue. Nobody seems to be complaining about the quality of the current article, and nobody disputes that his death isn't a significant news story. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb, as per the majority of people in this discussion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

July 12Edit


Day of Action to Save Net NeutralityEdit

Article: Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Many websites, including Amazon and Netflix, join an online protest in favor of net neutrality.
Alternative blurb: ​Many websites, including Amazon and Netflix, protest against the Trump administration's plans to repeal the Open Internet Order.
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/12/net-neutrality-fcc-day-of-action-protest-internet

Nominator's comments: Even though this appears in the news portal, this "largest online protest in history" should appear on the front page as well. On January 17, 2012, the Wikipedia community had its act together by deliberating on this one day in advance. This time, I am a day late. Connor Behan (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - was going to nominate this. Large protest on a topic which Wikipedia famously stood for a few years ago. In the news rather prominently. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support except please include the Internet Archive (pictured) in place of Amazon. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Not a question of being in the news, and while US-centric, adoption of a non-Net Neutrality stance here will slowly affect the rest of the world. But we're talking a single day of protest which amounted mostly to companies reminding their readers to submit comments to the FCC to state their urge against their new rules. Contrast that to SOPA where many many websites blacked out making them unusable, a much more pro-active stance to demonstrate the resistance against SOPA. The issue on Net Neutrality is less about free speech compared to SOPA, and more about dollars and bottom lines. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The fact of the matter is that this simply did not generate as much Internet buzz as the SOPA protests.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps worth consideration if this law is actually passed. SpencerT♦C 23:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Notable news with significant press coverage. One might argue that it's US-centric however due to three things it also has a global angle which imo is sufficient here:
    • It was called the "Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality" with "Internet-Wide" implying also non-US citizens to participate; which at least some have done
    • Due to the global nature of the Internet unneutrality of it in any country can have effects also on citizens outside the US. This is by the communication and content from US citizens and potentially companies available/present on the Internet and due to potentially influencing the ways multinational corporations and other nations act on this issue.
    • The protest also reached out to citizens of other countries due to the way those (most?) companies participated (such as by showing a banner to all site-visitors regardless of country).
While it did not generate as much buzz as the SOPA protests it did gain quite some attention & coverage which should be enough for posting.
However I oppose both blurbs and suggest to remove all specific company names as ITN is no advertising space and as (as of right now) it's hard to best assess which of the many to name (e.g. their impact/reach of participation).
--Fixuture (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Chuck BlazerEdit

Article: Chuck Blazer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Banned ex-Fifa official Sherenk1 (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I concur with the Rambling Man that this article has sufficient citation and is in good enough condition to be adequate for RD Harambe Walks (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 13:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Lula da Silva sentencedEdit

Article: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (pictured) is sentenced to 9 and a half years of prison over the Operation Car Wash corruption scandal.
News source(s): The New York Times, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Head of state sentenced for a corruption scandal. Clearly notable. Cambalachero (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on principle, oppose on quality The conviction/sentence of a previous head of state in a large scale corruption deal is clearly material for ITN, but I'm a bit worried about a number of paras in da Silva's article lacking sources, and I would also hope that we could feature Operation Car Wash but that has a few cn's floating around too. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely a notable occurrence. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose several paragraphs missing citations --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done. Note that I had previously removed some tagged unreferenced parts, and a user restored the unreferenced info in the meantime. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits; unusual for someone of his position. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support very notable. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, despite the inevitable appeal. I've not assessed the article quality. Modest Genius talk 11:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose he's not going to prison, appeal means he's out now and will be for some time. Once he's sent down, then it's a story. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support By the time he starts his sentence, this will be "old news." This is the correct occasion to report the story. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    The point is that he may never start his sentence. He's nowhere near a prison right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    In the past for any major story about a court case, it is always been the point of conviction and sentencing that is used as the ITN point, regardless of conditions of the sentence, the potential for appeals, etc. We know he's probably not going to see a prison cell, but he has been labelled guilty by the court, and that's the element of importance for ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    I get all that, the point remains that he is not in prison, will not be going to prison in the near future and may actually never go to prison. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    The point remains that the blurb doesn't say he's been imprisoned. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it also doesn't say that he's been allowed to remain prison-free indefinitely until such a time any appeal is heard and found against him. It doesn't even stop him running for President again!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    Should he be in jail with no chance of appeal? I'm sure a lot of us would agree with this stance, but unfortunately, between how justice systems work, as well as how politics at this level works, that's not happening. We can be bitter about that, and feel he deserves more retribution, but putting aside that POV, he was labelled guilty of corruption charges and was to be imprisoned. Doesn't matter what happened after that point, the former leader of a major nation-state being convicted of a serious crime is what fits ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    I don't follow, I'm not arguing anything about the rights and wrongs of the case, just that the blurb is incomplete, he has appealed, is not in prison and may never go to prison. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    Wouldn't a long explanation make the blurb too long? Cambalachero (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Objections understood, but the mere fact that a widely known former head of state (of the largest country in South America) has been convicted/sentenced is prima facie significant. Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The conviction of a former head of state makes this ITN worthy, even if the inevitable appeals are still to come. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. -- King of ♠ 05:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Larsen Ice ShelfEdit

Article: Larsen Ice Shelf (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A giant iceberg covering approximately 6000 sq km breaks away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf (pictured) in Antarctica.
News source(s): BBC, The Telegraph, Reuters, The Guardian, European Space Agency

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This is sufficiently notable. Larsen_Ice_Shelf#Larsen_C needs a little more text on this current break-off, and needs to reference news articles from this month (current reference is from January). --LukeSurl t c 12:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this is adequate for posting now. --LukeSurl t c 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support One of the largest ice shelf ever recorded being monitored for a long time now. Very notable 45.72.139.154 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support Notable, global news. It is also very significant, affects many and is getting much press coverage. Instead of "sq km" maybe write km². I also added some sources including one which has a photo of the actual breakoff. --Fixuture (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I had seen concerns of this in the weeks prior, but since authorities agree it's broken loose, this is the point to post. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Very strong support - More people need to be paying attention to the effects of climate change on this planet.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not clear that this particular breakoff is linked to climate change − or at least: that it's caused by it. Dr. Daniela Jansen, the glaciologist from the Alfred Wegener Institute who discovered the break, suggests it might have to do with climate change though. But as said that's not clear and the news articles linked above also make that clear. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. DS (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. An important and rare event. However, I also find myself unimpressed with the somewhat disorganized wall-of-text in the relevant part of the article. While I don't think it should prevent an appearance on ITN, I would encourage someone to work on improving the prose, especially with an eye to the big-picture organization and flow. As a first thought, it might be helpful to a create separate section for the iceberg formation event and separate that from the general physical characteristics of the larger ice shelf. Dragons flight (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's in the news, update is what you can expect for a piece of floating ice, article is ok. Yawn at the editorializing here though I'm sure more than a few readers cared about Gagnam Style so lets not decide whats news for them. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. A pic in the ITN box would be nice. --Tone 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. The largest iceberg in years. This image or an updated version might also be useful. 123.165.170.148 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately at a 100px, those labels would be lost. ESA has a really good image but ESA's work is generally not free license. NASA has the next best image, released today that shows the full crack, but the image would need to be refined better to make it clear at 100px. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • File:Larson_c_crack_nasa_worldview_20170712.jpg (I messed up the name but have requested the move at commons) is a good image for this. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Alright, one moment please. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC) So now I've uploaded File:Larsen C breaks.jpg. I'll try to modify it for a proper picture if nobody else does that. Another thing people could do would be to clarify the copyright of this timelapse gif "Monitoring the rift". You'd probably need to contact the Swansea University for that. --Fixuture (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC) So now I've also uploaded a few modified versions under "File history" of c:File:Larsen_C_breaks.jpg. (Not sure if it's possible to set a default image for it; if it is please set the 1st or 2nd image as default.) Maybe you can use one of those version as the image shown in the ITN-tile. But due to the small size of the tile the current image is probably a better choice. --Fixuture (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The scientists reporting this go for 5,800 km2 ([53]), which I think should be the level of precision we go for rather than 6,000. Regardless, the number should have digit grouping IMO. --LukeSurl t c 14:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Also {{convert|5800|sqkm|abbr=on|sigfig=2}} will yield 5,800 km2 (2,200 sq mi) which is preferable to how the units are currently written. --LukeSurl t c 14:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 • QUESTION: Do "strong support" or "very strong support" count as more weighty, i.e. having more votes, than just "support" – ?? Sca (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the consensus is that strong supports count as 2 votes and very strong supports count as 3 votes.--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I weight them as roughly 1.5, and 'weak' !votes as 0.5, but I don't think there's ever been a proper discussion or real consensus. The quality of the argument counts for more than putting 'strong' in front of a !vote. Modest Genius talk 15:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 • I think it just means that the participant is more firm in their support due to what they asses as good reasons. If you use "strong support" too often and(/or) without a firm backing/rationale you could potentially decrease the weight of your vote by a bit and certainly "strong support" would be assessed as just your 'ordinary' support. I'm not sure where WaltCip got that from: pretty sure that this is false. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I made it up.--WaltCip (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 • Seems to me the adjectives are merely emotional embellishments. One user, one vote – or half a vote in the case of a "weak" support or oppose. Otherwise, it would be like the old Tammany Hall slogan, "Vote early and often," no? Sca (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 11Edit


First Chinese military base abroadEdit

Article: Chinese naval base in Djibouti (talk, history)
Blurb: People's Liberation Army Navy ships depart from port in Zhanjiang, China to the Chinese naval base in Obock, Djibouti, marking the ceremonial opening of China's first permanent overseas military base.
Alternative blurb: ​China's PLA Navy opens its naval base in Djibouti, China's first permanent overseas military base

 Muzzleflash (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Quite a significant story. 123.165.168.245 (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Yeah, significant. The blurb needs some wikilinks though. STSC (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - significant development. Article is short but well referenced. I've bolded the main article in the blurb, which needs to be trimmed to focus on the main development. -Zanhe (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the quotations in the references for the article are longer than the article. If the article is expanded, this can be posted but at present it is too thin for the topic. BencherliteTalk 07:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per STSC & Zanhe. There aren't too many countries with such bases. Banedon (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is too short.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle as a substantial geopolitical development, and I've added a better blurb. However, the article is woefully short at present. It's going to need some significant expansion to get into postable shape in time. Modest Genius talk 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Gangnam Style usurped on YouTubeEdit

Erm, no. BencherliteTalk 09:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: List of most viewed YouTube videos (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following a five-year reign, Psy's Gangnam Style has been overtaken as the most viewed video on YouTube by See You Again.
News source(s): BBC NPR
Nominator's comments: Is this trivial? Absolutely. However, YouTube is the world's second largest site according to Alexa, five years and the accumulated fame around Gangnam Style are significant in internet terms, and this is getting worldwide attention from reputable media. It is at least worth consideration in my view, especially given the current state of the ITN items. Speedy-close if this nom is frowned-upon. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


  • OpposeSca (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom's first two sentences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was bound to happen, and something is bound to surpass See You Again. Add that as numbers that can be gamed by users (F5), it's not necessary that impressive a feat. It's a possible thing that would make for good DYK for either article but I don't think either could qualify due to age/non-newness. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support not convinced by oppose rationales. 2.9 billion views is tremendous (for comparison world population is ~7 billion) so it's hard to see this as trivial. While it's probable that eventually something will surpass See You Again, so what? The record lasted for five years, which is not a short time. If anything I would support making this ITNR. Having said that I think See You Again should be the bolded article. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too easy to game those numbers, and if the nominator says it's trivial...... 331dot (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose maybe suitable for DYK but certainly not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose relatively easily breakable tech/website "record". SpencerT♦C 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose You had me at "trivial". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationEdit

Clearly not going to get consensus. Ks0stm (TCGE) 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Kingdom and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sponsor a poverty reduction summit that plans on raising funds for family planning in developing countries.
News source(s): (TIME), (The Hindustan Times)
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. So the story here is that a charitable foundation is going to raise money for a charitable cause? Isn't that what charitable foundations typically do? 331dot (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If some dollar figure was put forth that was record-breaking in terms of size, that might be something, but this is what charities do otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Bill Gates gets a tax writeoff. What news?--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because there is no meaningful update I can see. Maybe try again after the summit. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Promotional material, not really ITN-worthy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 10Edit


[Ready] Terrorist attack on Amarnath YatraEdit

Article: Terrorist attack on Amarnath Yatra (2017) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Atleast 7 people are killed and 19 injured during the Amarnath Yatra in Jammu and Kashmir.
News source(s): NDTV

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant due to number of people killed and of happening after a long period of time. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on significance: I was considering nominating this myself, but won't have the time to see it through. The article has problems, though. Too many accusations from policemen and involved individuals, too much coatracking of past incidents. Also, as with any article about a terrorist attack, I'd like to see coverage from media sources outside that country; those within get caught up with the general hysteria all too quickly, and start throwing around statements which mean little. This is particularly true of conflicts in south Asia, and within those, of Kashmir. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Insignificant incident of regional conflict between India and Pakistan. STSC (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • So, terrorist byproducts of an international conflict are notable when they occur in Europe, and not when they occur in South Asia...why exactly? Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not about where the incident occurred. My point is that a relatively small-scale incident of a regional conflict would not be significant on ITN. STSC (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Knowing that's an area of high violence, I am a bit concerned that there are no major world sources (BBC, NYTimes, AP, or Reuters) reporting on this, telling me how much of a change this is from the status quo in the area. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Article could use a bit of touching up, and I'm not 100% for sure that this rises to main page significance, but I did see some major world sources do an article or two on it (I'm not exactly sure who since I saw them on Apple News (maybe the Washington Post and Reuters?), but I could probably hunt down links if anyone wants), so I don't see why not assuming Vanamonde's concerns with the article are rectified. Ks0stm (TCGE) 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think there is a danger in conflating the various incidences of violence in this part of the world. Military-on-military violence is one thing, security forces killing protesters is one thing. Direct killing of civilians, especially in these numbers, does not appear to be ordinary. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - religious motivations were sufficient for 2017 Finsbury Park attack, the same should apply here. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Mongolia presidential electionEdit

Articles: Mongolian presidential election, 2017 (talk, history) and Battulga Khaltmaa (talk, history)
Blurb: Battulga Khaltmaa (pictured) is inaugurated President of Mongolia following the July presidential runoff election.
News source(s): Al Jazeera EnglishChannel NewsAsia

Article updated

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: First new president of Mongolia since 2009. Significant election for the country (first ever presidential runoff), but has received minimal attention on Wikipedia so far (I just added links in Portal:Current events today). Also, inclusion in "ITN" will increase views for the Battulga Khaltmaa bio page, which may lead to fixes for some of the page issues. --> Scanlan (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - "Battulga Khaltmaa" article still has a number of issues to be resolved. STSC (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] C-130 Hercules crash in MississippiEdit

Strong, near unanimous consensus against posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 United States Marine Corps KC-130 crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 16 people are killed in a C-130 Hercules crash in Leflore County, Mississippi.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator's comments: Disaster with significant number of casualties. EternalNomad (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Only as a comment, but nothing necessarily opposing immediately, we generally do not post accidents involving military person while in the course of duty, which this fully appears to be. (There was a military plane accident a month or so ago but that included families of military people, so that was appropriate). Right now there's not enough to know if this is a special unique story here. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This may even be subject to becoming a redirect per WP:AIRCRASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Tied with a 2016 air ballon crash, which we posted, as the deadliest domestic aviation disaster in the United States in the 2010s decade. 140.207.23.32 (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    Military crashes don't tend to be considered in the same way as civil crashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose; accidental crash of a military aircraft that may not merit its own article. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 16 people is not very much, and it was an accident. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose Though this is not ITN worthy, there's no need for this kind of sentiment. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose no lasting impact. Banedon (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It would be significant news if that happened in a battlefield. STSC (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tragic, but not particularly significant. I'm also not certain that the article itself is necessary. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Nothing significant about this crash except the comparatively high number of victims. Sca (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A tragic event of course but described by the military as a "mishap" so doubtful there will be lasting significance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above. Not questioning the tragedy, but this story is not a civil aviation crisis. It is the death of active combatants, which is not particularly noteworthy. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Liu XiaoboEdit

Withdrawn by nominator BencherliteTalk 13:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Liu Xiaobo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo is in "critical condition," according to Chinese doctors.
News source(s): (The New York Times)
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose will be listed at RD assuming quality of article is good enough if/when they die. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
That's enough of that, STSC. BencherliteTalk 11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are you serious? STSC (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
OK,... are you a comedian by trade? STSC (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
No, why do you ask? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ITN has never posted stories along the lines of "X is seriously ill". If Liu Xiaobo dies from this illness, then an appearance at RD will depend on the article being in good condition (I spot four "citation needed" tags already). If he recovers, then all well and good. So it's an oppose from me too. BencherliteTalk 11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not because a RD place has been reserved for Liu, as if a place in ITN now would be wasted. The story about Liu has been sensationalised by the media; there's no need to repeat it on ITN. STSC (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, I don't follow the first part of this. Nothing is reserved for anyone: RD exists for recent deaths, and ITN never posts "critically ill" people. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Liu Xiabo is currently experiencing multiple organ failure so not quite sensationalised. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bencherlite. Wait for RD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the posting of a change in medical condition of someone. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 9Edit


[Posted] RD: Anton NossikEdit

Article: Anton Nossik (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Known as 'godfather' of Russian internet Sherenk1 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose citation needed in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Added citation and article looks well sourced enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted, although I think using "Biography" as the name of a section in a biography article is discouraged, this is not an issue that should delay posting. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    Just for the record, Thryduulf, I've used "Biography" and seen others do it frequently too. Most often in biographies that are too short for any other sections but long enough for a lead; less often, but still regularly, in longer articles in which "biography" is separated from things like ideology and influence. There's a good many FAs and GAs that use this structure. Vanamonde (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Brexit may never happenEdit

We don't post comments from minority politicians. Stephen 23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Brexit may never happen
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: "Sir Vince Cable - the likely next Lib Dem leader - says he is "beginning to think Brexit may never happen".

He said "enormous" divisions in the Labour and the Tory parties and a "deteriorating" economy would make people think again. "People will realise that we didn't vote to be poorer, and I think the whole question of continued membership will once again arise," he said." Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose and recommend speedy close. If Brexit never happens, we'll post that, but this is purely a speculative article. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I would dearly like it if Brexit were never to happen, it will happen unless Britain actively uninvokes Article 20 (probably not correct terminology). We would obviously post that, but this is speculation and we essentially never post speculation of any kind on ITN - we post when something happens (or, less often, when something predicted or scheduled to happen doesn't happen). Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Article 50, but I'll endorse the sentiment. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Also open to speedy closure. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Battle of MosulEdit

Article: Battle of Mosul (2016–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Battle of Mosul concludes with the city being recaptured by the Iraqi government.
Alternative blurb: ​The Iraqi government declares victory in the Battle of Mosul
News source(s): Al Jazeera, NYT

 TompaDompa (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Needs some updates (infobox etc.) but otherwise support. There is a yellow-level tag on the top but it is not problematic at the moment (long article). --Tone 15:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Altblurb suggested. Considering the vast size of the article, and the fact that it has dealt with an ongoing war where facts are somewhat sketchy, we should be forgiving when it comes to tags and the like. --LukeSurl t c 16:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on the principle of the topic, but boy does that article fail WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:PROSELINE in how it is written. We shouldn't have day by day summary but described broad pictures of the events (eg taking historical context like the Normandy landings). I doubt that that can be fixed in reasonable time, so consider this only a light oppose !vote only that I think we can definitely do better, but not to take away from the ITN timing. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. I see there were some updates. --Tone 16:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Ya'll got suckered by an Iraqi politician; the battle is not quite over. Abductive (reasoning) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
      • There seems to be some cleanup operations but I'm not seeing any RS disagree with this stance by the Iraqi PM. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
        • After you chumps posted, 'Al-Abadi said the battle is settled and the remaining pockets of ISIS are encircled in the last inches of the city," the statement said. "It is a matter of time before we declare to our people the great victory."' Suckers. Abductive (reasoning) 03:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Per the article, they have forced the remaining ISIS to about 50-100 homes that they still need to defeat and rescue the hostages, but the implication is that the number of ISIS left in the city and the number of allied troops they have stationed, there is no way that what's left of ISIS there can retake the city in the near-term. It seems a fairly reasonable ITN point (particularly since they don't know exactly all the places ISIS may be hiding in the city or nearby, and its impossible to prove they got every last one of them). --MASEM (t) 03:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic and uncivil
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
            • You are justifying a bad posting, making yourself look both biased and foolish. Never trust politicians. This Iraqi fucker just raped the truth, and you are helping him gouge out your own eyes. Abductive (reasoning) 08:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
              • Ignoring the blatant BLP there, even if it were the case that the battle was long from over, we're attributing the claim of victory to the Iraqi gov't, which all other western RSes also report without question. Is this their version of "Mission Accomplished"? I don't know, but the media doesn't seem to think so. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
                • There's no BLP violation possible here; this page is not indexed. I'll reiterate, politicians are self-serving scum who can never be reliable sources. I hope you fools have learned your lesson. Abductive (reasoning) 23:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
                  • WP:BLP applies to any Wikipedia page, including this one. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
                    • Pathetic. You are willing to use wikilawyering to make yourself feel better for having believed a lying sack of Iraqi shit. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Question why would this not be appropriate for ongoing but is appropriate for a blurb? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Because nothing was being updated and it wasn't ongoing news. At this point I just assume all your posts are going to be POINTY. LordAtlas (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah I confused the reasons behind this article's removal with the one for Syrian Civil War. On the other hand your constant POINTY baiting is aggravating and beginning today I'm not going to read anything you write. So long. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing event: Battle of RaqqaEdit

Article: Battle of Raqqa (2017) (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): CNN BBC Guardian Reuters AP

Nominator's comments: something notable to fill the 'ongoing events' section. the recently-finished Battle of Mosul was displayed on the 'ongoing events' section. the Battle of Raqqa is just as much of an important geopolitical event who's outcome will have region and global effects. also, my first suggestion, so apologies if any errors made. the article linked is sourced, has an updated map, and should be sufficient. thank you :) Cavanan (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • If you remove the blurb from the above template it will properly format as an ongoing item nomination. --LukeSurl t c 10:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment - this has already been placed on and removed from Ongoing. (no reflection on the nom, just merely pointing it out) Stormy clouds (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] March for Justice (Turkey)Edit

Articles: 2017 March for Justice (talk, history) and Kemal Kilicdaroglu (talk, history)
Blurb: ​450km Turkish March for Justice concluded in Istanbul at a mass rally attended by hundreds of thousands of people
Alternative blurb: ​450km Turkish March for Justice led by Kemal Kilicdaroglu concluded in Istanbul at a mass rally attended by hundreds of thousands of people
Alternative blurb II: ​A 450-km protest march to Istanbul is held against mass arrests in Turkey.
News source(s): GuardianReuters

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Very significant protest has concluded successfully in Istanbul with a huge rally. The story has been covered in depth by major international press sources. I've also updated the Kemal Kilicdaroglu article for recent events, and it includes a short section about the protest that was added earlier today by another editor. I think both articles are in suitable condition. Seraphim System (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on principle (100,000s rally is a good size to be notable). I'd recommend if you can get a map of the march, as well as adding some background to the event. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is a (free map), if there are sources for the route I might be able to make one. I'll look into it.Seraphim System (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's a preliminary map it's not free but it's a start , and it clearly follows major highways (E80 and E89 from Google Maps). --MASEM (t) 00:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I used a basic one from NTV as a source, it just shows the provinces they passed through. We can't really use google as a base map, as far as I know, and I've never been able to download that large a map from OSM so I just use an outline, like most of the maps I've seen in our articles. Seraphim System (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "March for Justice" seems like a potentially misleading term. Can I assume that there are others who don't consider this march to be "justice"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    • [58] That's the name of the event. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
      • And if the KKK called their recent march,[59] "March for Justice", Wikipedia should use their name in Wikipedia's voice? Without quotes? Without attribution? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, quoting can't hurt, but it's a fact it would be called that, that's something we can't question even if it is "wrong" from a majority view. Attribution is not required. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Insofar as we are required to follow WP:RS, this March has been compared to Gahndi's Salt march and the term has been accepted by the vast majority of sources, aside from Daily Sabah which is a staunchly pro-government paper. This is sourced to mainstream media sources like Guardian, Reuters and Washington Post (which we do not usually treat as biased sources that require attribution.) Quotes from Ak Parti officials have been included in the article, and attributed. WP:NPOV requires that we follow the majority view of WP:RS. Anyway, I have added a map and expanded the background a bit. Seraphim System (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose.